Because of the grossly misguided requests for "facts" (as if these could only be the dead body itself, or a death certificate), I will hereby post the facts of the CASE and how we know that we don't need, though it would be preferable to have, the body and certificate.In 1969 the Life mag. did a special saying Paul was alive. The photos went back only to when the putative Paul#2 -- alternately called "Faul" for "false Paul" in many places -- was already installed in the band, and also when the most overtly doctored photos were done of him mixed with the real James Paul McCartney.As time went on, there was less need to doctor photos, as age changes could be assumed more and more to account for changes (though some of these changes are not possible from age), and the photos which were doctored match neither man upon close and scientific comparison.On to the forensics of the two live men, based on their photos (carefully selected by forensic scientists) ...
The photos in Life went back only to 1967, to be specific.
Aside, but posting anyway near the top: Note that Julian Lennon has Paul die from a head wound (blood on a head tourniquet after being hit) on Abbey Road, and there is a head tourniquet on him, at all other times as well, except the opening scene. The man playing Paul interchanges with other characters, but in the scene the man is Paul, for he is the one in that position being hit by the car having gone by -- and in the album by Macca, video, a car goes into the scene there.Also in the video's Abbey Road scene, he seems to make the point that bare feet on hot asphalt is not normal and would hurt -- that it was not just "kicking off" sandals to walk across barefooted on a hot day, as Paul claimed on Letterman recently (after this video by many years). If so, Julian long before pointed out the silliness of the action, unless planned. It's unclear in this video if it's supposed to be the bicycle which ran over the person's toe, but it also is suggestive of how one's feet would hurt on the asphalt.Finally, he also implies Yoko had something to do with Paul's death, for a Yoko look-alike drives the bus which mows down the Paul character in the scene.
I mean in Julian Lennon's music video for his song "I don't wanna know".
Again, due to dismissiveness about the forensic work -- which the dismissers did not study -- I will make a preliminary comment on it before providing the references.What these would-be detractors often clearly assume is that neither they nor others besides experts could know if the scientists did a good job, or, alternately, that the scientists had to have done a bad job and thus are not worth studying at all.An appeal to an authority is not always a fallacy, but sometimes it is. When it is, it is called an appeal-to-authority fallacy.When I present these forensic scientists' work, I do so having thought about their arguments, which are made clearly and which, if you think enough about them, make an absolute case. You can study the efforts they made to make leeway for certain changes in skin fat, etc., over time, because they explain what should NOT get leeway when doing forensic measurements and WHY.They clearly did a good job.We do not need to BE the scientists to understand a well-reasoned and complete argument. To assume such would mean that juries have no value.Here, then, is the information on the forensic work:ny hoi polloi can understand the arguments if they think about them enough. One issue is the teeth. The teeth are so compressed in the original James Paul McCartney that braces would have to be significant and many teeth pulled, or, possibly, as the forensic scientists suggest, he would have needed "reconstructive palatal surgery", which breaks the palate, a very bloody & long-recovery-time surgery even now. Back in the 60s, it was occasionally done, but wld've been even more difficult to recover from, such as over a year. It would have required a head brace. We know he did not have this surgery or major braces and teeth pulled, blood, etc.The only attempts to debunk rather than ignore the forensics are by: Gary J Anderson (covered below) and various Youtube and forum comment posters, who say the forensic scientists got their photos from PID forums and "so their conclusions are discredited".So let me handle these things in order.1. The forensic analyst is a medically trained forensic photoanalyst, who has worked on high-profile Italian and other political cases, among other things. The computer specialist who modeled the findings for further comparisons in 3D is her son, who also works in these fields. They explain how they had a hard time finding good frontal photos of Paul but found 2 which were on PID sites which actually matched frontally and which they found the sources for. They said clearly dated frontal early photos of him are hard to find. They were delighted when it turned out that the kinds of medical points they needed were similarly angled in each. They used these two to model front views for Paul, to which to match others to.They found that Paul#2 matched himself (post-1967) but never matched the first Paul and were astounded. They also found some photos, particularly obviously the Sgt Peppers inner cover, which had to have been doctored between the two for the doctored photos matched neither in most things and a few proportions of one and the other.There is nothing wrong in their method of choosing photos, and nor are they flakes, as some have claimed.(cont'd ...)
Just for the record, the forensics are the core of the case--and I have simply yet to study them sufficiently to arrive at any firm conclusion. (Even then, I might or might not have a firm conclusion.) But I do not take this lightly. I have identified with Paul much of my adult life. It was not easy for me to have these shows. The issue is far from settled, but Clare and Total have offered serious reasons in support of their own positions. It may take me some time to sort it all out, but I certainly agree that there is a real issue here that needs to be sorted out.
2. Gary Anderson wrote "The Walrus Was Paul". He has a Webpage in which he does actually attempt to respond to the forensics. His response was to run the idea by a friend of his who works at the famed "body farm" in the USA. The friend is knowledgeable about his own death-process medical knowledge, of course, but misrepresents the problems in photo forensics. The friend suggests that although it isn't his field, he doesn't believe it's possible to DO photo forensics!How so? Well, he says, when a skull is "clean", it is impossible to know how much tissue depth would have been on it -- you could be fat or thin, have a birthmark, etc., but never know by the skull. So sculptors working from skulls -- as we know -- cannot say they have the person's look exactly.Of course this is begging the question of what photo forensics (and our own brains) do to recognize people's heads and faces. In the case of a live person, we forgive a bit of skin change, but judge relative changes and relative set-points. Some set-points change almost not at all, without other changes occurring, or never occur without great emaciation, and even then not by much (say, the temples or the lowest join of nose to upper lip or between the inner and outer eyes relative to each other or to uppermost cheek, etc.). Some cannot be modified by surgery beyond a millimeter or so, or would be so obvious as say, adding a major bulge to a whole area, because those points are themselves unchangeable in isolation: no bone to change them with (the lowest nose join on the skull is an example: there's nothing you can do to raise that point of join, since there's no strong bone to connect a higher nose join to!).All right, so these forensics experts compared point-to-point with some forgiveness, then those totals to others and others and so on, and then modeled a 3D and 2D version. Then these were compared with the same actions from multiple and individual photos from the later Paul.The summary of these findings was published in Wired Italia magazine in 2009, and released on the same day or very close thereto, as the Letterman interview of Paul #2, where he talked about PID "at the end of the 60s" (quite a rarity these days for him to talk of it, and the timing seems now like it was a deflection from the brouhaha which might have reached the US from the Wired article). The machine Google translation at plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2010/01/forensic-science-proves-paul-was.html (see the bottom, the article in PDF is on top) is the only translation available on line other than post by "js" at http://invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=5735 --- date of post Jul 17, 2009, 9:21am, about 1/2 down the page.They also wrote a book called: "Codice McCartney. La verità sulla morte di Paul" (Alessandra Gigante, Fabio Andriola). It is available here: http://www.ciao.it/Codice_McCartney_La_verita_sulla_morte_di_Paul_Alessandra_Gigante_Fabio_Andriola__3426643
The bottom line to all of this is that by comparing photos Gabriella Carlesi has determined that the original James Paul McCartney born in 1942 has a different skull than the individual who has claimed to be Paul McCartney since 1967. Therefore they are different people. It's right there in black and white folks. Deal with it. No need to post vile garbage about me and Clare. Don't say we don't have any proof or any other BS. You have no proof that the individual claiming to be Paul McCartney today is in fact James Paul McCartney. If you have issues dealing with the truth then that's your problem. No need to shoot the messenger.
Now, on to the OPD/P patch issue, which has been debated as to IF it is a clue (i.e., if OPD or OPP was on the sleeve of "Paul" on the inner fold of the Sgt Pepper album):The issue was that no-one knew for many years what OPP or OPD would mean. Then someone realized that OPP was Ontario Provincial Police. You're right. But as I explained in my coverage of the subject, the main photo used to argue about was the 2nd image used for the Sgt P inner-double-album picture, had the "D" of the doctored image going around the arm, which many people therefore believed was merely a "P" in foreshortened shape. This was what was intended. A tease. (Of course, it was not a P, nor could a P look like a D when it had a long stem on the P, as these do, judge-able by the middle P which was frontal.)Anyway, another picture they used exists, possibly for an early British release? Or a rare poster? Anyway, it is shown in an older film, reproduced in the Iamaphoney Youtube video "Rotten Apple 47 2" at 0:07 forward for a few seconds.THAT image had a FULL FRONTAL "OPD" in slightly different embroidery.They had to have used an OPP patch and altered it physically each time, or done photo manipulation (most likely the latter on the commoner around-the-arm version, since it would be a slight change in that one and not in the full frontal version shown in the rarer image).I have seen that full-frontal OPD before, but I don't know where it was. Anyway, let THAT debate end. Whatever the reality of Paul's death or not, the damned OPP was changed to an OPD.
THE OFFICIAL BEATLES FANCLUB DECEMBER NEWSLETTER (1969): Beatle News - Press Officer Derek Taylor said in a recent article in one of the music papers " ... the Volkswagen was parked purely by chance, the OPD spells Ontario Police Department ..."Freda Kelly (Writer) appears in issue No.77 The Beatles Book Monthly (last published issue from original run by Beat Publications Ltd.
Thanks, Dr T, for providing a quick reference for the OPD statement by Taylor. I think Macca did, too. But it shows they KNEW it was a D. (The actual police patch they started from was Ontario Police ... but the actual department is called Ontario Provincial Police, OPP.)Anyway, we have this key image of a clear, frontal OPD on the OPP patch in the alternate version of the image. Anyone should go to "Rotten Apple 47 2" to see it at about 13 sec.
All right, now let's move on to Mal Evans, the insider to the Beatles' lives, their friend and roadie. His diary was located and partly released. Very limited excerpts were published in 2003 (in an article in the Sunday Times newspaper, but now only referenced elsewhere and in excerpts from THAT, thus incomplete from incomplete reporting to start with).Mal Evans was rumoured to have written a BOOK, called "Living the Beatles Legend". This disappeared after Mal was killed in 1976.Anyone interested in the Mal Evans issue must now know the following:1. EVANS' BOOK MANUSCRIPT, NOT HIS DIARIES WAS THE ITEM OF IMPORT LOST AT HIS DEATH. See below the next section for the details on the book.2. Again, Evans' diaries were published in excerpts some years ago by the Sunday Times.The only remaining record of what was published which I can find are some excerpts of these excerpts at http://beatlesite.blogspot.com/2009/08/mal-evans-diaries.html (Aside: The original article of May 20, 2003 on the Times' Website is scrubbed now).Details on the date of publication of the original article and acquiring of the diary were posted at http://board.georgeharrison.com/viewtopic.php?q=board/viewtopic.php&f=3&t=34&p=109861 .3. So, back to the BOOK MANUSCRIPT:EVANS' BOOK WAS THE ITEM OF IMPORT, lost after his shooting by Charles Higby in 1976, a suspicious character in the LAPD. (That's another story and set of research. Look him up and find the old articles of his boss complaining about his usurpation of his own role, especially when investigating police corruption -- ha ha, looks like a plant. Also was involved in the Robert Kennedy death cover-up.)It seems the actual BOOK, "Living the Beatles Legend: The Secret" manuscript by Mal has in fact been found now, or is being finally released by its owner.Page 146 is purportedly shown in Iamaphoney's movie, "TheWingedBeatle". Here are the details:In part 5/5, at 10:26 we see the putative cover of the book, inscribed as "RIP". At 10:28 we see a full-page "p. 146" of the book. Parts of the page are blurred, but most of it is readable.There is a partial close-up at 10:37, which fades in. It includes most of the previous blurred part unblurred.If you stop to read each time, you'll find hints of Paul's death -- that "Paul" fit right in as if he'd been part of them the whole time. Let me transcribe some of the salient parts:At 10:32 you can see:Mal kicks out George (Kelly) the housekeeper for Paul's house, forever. Then Mal writes the following (a few names hard to read have "[?]" after, and parts which are outright blurred deliberately by Iamaphoney have "[...]" after):"The next day Paul arrived. We were all there, Neil, [next name hard to read - ?], John, Ringo, Anita[? unsure], George and Tony. Everybody was excited and stunned. They did a good job in [... -- which must be the name of the hospital/ town in Kenya they went to at the time]. It was really happening. It was like we had known him forever."The next sentences say, "Brian was afraid. Neil assured him that he could trust Pete [I don't know what Pete is meant here; possibly Pete Best], but he needed a commitment from him. John was paralyzed. Just don't go there, he said. We don't need friggin Pete involved. I don't need to see him again."You can read the rest of that 10:32 image yourself.Now go to 10:37 for a clearer close-up of some of it, and some of the previously blurred segment.Note that at the very fade-in at 10:37, he shows the very bottom section of the now-unblurred section -- Very briefly. This part talks about creating the concept of Sgt Peppers, and says how it was "discussed at the clinic in Kenya" and a new sound "was the kind of thing that could distract from what we were doing."
I was wrong re. the Mal Evans diary article; it was re-posted at http://beatlesnumber9.com/mal.htmlAnd it's still at Times Online, but for a paid subscription. And its title, stated as "With a little help from my friend" in many forums, is actually (or that was a different article): "Here, there and everywhere"
And here:http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/02/the-jfk-war-an-insiders-guide-to-assassination-research-ii/... is the Sunday Times link. The article was by Mark Edmonds, 20 March 2005.The author and link and date are not given at the link at beatlesnumber9.com/mal.html where the full text is given, so here you are for the full info.
And about the timeline of the "rumour", which is often represented in Websites and books as "having started" in 1969 in the USA:The man who called in said later that he had heard it around campus already, so he was not cooking it up. He said he thinks his roommate heard it too from a band which came from London or England, and turned him on to the idea.We also know that it was late 1969 when this began to be more widely heard of in the USA. But it was already in Feb. 1967 fan-base "Beatles Book" in England where the rumour was first denied. To suggest that was to "boost record sales" would be silly.But you do have a point: in 1966 though, not importantly in 1969, the Beatles ALSO had disappeared for a month or two. Someone expressing himself as "Paul" for newspapers was suggesting the band might split, or might not.I think they were indecisive of what to do, and maybe felt if it didn't work they would all sheepishly apologize. But it began to work. Can you imagine the grief AND disgust an intelligent Lennon would have for the fact that few suspected?Anyway, it was in 1966-67 that the issue was important for the case, not when the rumour made it to the USA in force, which was 3 years after Paul's death.The idea that the 1966-67 London rumours were anything to do with publicity or money-making is patently absurd in how it is ill-fitting to the long time it required for the "publicity rumour" to be significant for money or publicity.The final idea that this was a serious rumour spread by the Beatles circle but of a SYMBOLIC DEATH of Paul after he "took the plunge" and "metaphorically died" by taking LSD is also silly.The rumour was existent in late 1966 already, according to the Beatles Book and now, according to Emilio Lari, the photographer of "Help!" movie, who has come out to say, "It seemed everyone knew" in late 1966. Most people don't turn their lives into whistleblowing or spreading ideas they don't feel too strongly about: Lari didn't immediately care what the Beatles did to keep their lives together as Beatles.He now cares, because he's been harassed to give up his original photos of the real Paul, because he's so clearly not the same young man as later.
Correction on forensics book -- It is partly by Andriola who is the freelance writer and interviewer who wrote the Wired article and was interviewed on a now-scrubbed TV show about the subject referenced here: http://invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=5735 under sub-post "Re: Finally!!!!!!!Post by ilras on May 4, 2010, 1:31pm"The TV show originally had 30 more minutes aired; voice analysis (of course) was cut for the more widely aired version; the widely aired version on the forensic facial and graphological analyses; then the widely aired cut version was put on Youtube; and now it's got "copyright infringement" scrubbing from Youtube.Also, though I mentioned PlasticMacca's Google machine translation of the Wired article, and one on this forum page where the TV show is mentioned also, there is a third translation of the Wired article (also on the forum page), and it's better than some: it's at "Re: Finally!!!!!!!Post by jojo on Jul 18, 2009, 10:12am" on http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2011/12/total-info.html#comment-form
Now, I would be remiss if I did not talk here about wrong, hodgepodge theories in the PID field over time. Of course, these occurred from people who don't think clearly but also as people gathered all possible threads of the case and worked out what details we had, as we got them. We still don't have all things nailed down. But we do know he's dead."Tom"'s 1969 phone call is not "the start" of the issue. Lari says already in 1966 he'd heard in London -- "Seemed like everyone knew," he said. People dismiss these things as being critical to their own lives and only later realize they should speak -- or not, for safety.Roby Yonge, the DJ who lost his job for not only taking "Tom"'s call in 1969 but particularly for pursuing it with vigour on his next programme, commented later that he'd already suspected Paul was replaced, at least for the event he was at, when he was at Jane Asher's / "Paul"'s engagement party in late 1967. It niggled at him. Like a lot of people, however, in weird situations he didn't know what to make of it personally.He and others made mistakes in what they believed might be part of the clues. Who wouldn't? It's part of investigations and brainstorming.Thus:So, to continue about the timeline of the "rumour", which I talked of in the last post, we know that typical Webpages and books about the Paul is Dead case, focus only on the 1969 USA issues. The real issue is that the rumour started much before.We have:a) The Beatles Book Feb. 1967 disclaimer.b) The memory of "Tom" who was interviewed in the early 2000s and said he heard it from his roommate, who had heard it from a London band, and others in the campus were already talking about it: he didn't come up with it.c) The new interview with Emilio Lari, on the Iamaphoney member site, which you wouldn't know of, since you're not into the case enough to see what people who believe in it are posting in detail.Lari was the photographer on the movie Help!, and claims he has been harassed by Paul #2, that Paul #2 is scary to deal with, and that he's definitely not the first Paul he came to know well and photograph often.
Here is what we know about (and don't know about) his death date -- approximate date:Paul was at the Melody Maker Awards, though it seems that footage was recycled for photos later ... I forget where that argument is made, but Tina Foster of PlasticMacca.blogspot.com has talked of this in a radio interview she did.I think it's unimportant to pin it down right now; we do have the "I ONE IX HE DIE" image from the original drum-skin gravestone on the Sgt Pepper album --- admitted to be a GRAVE image, by Beatles spokesman Derek Taylor, when asked on radio in 1969 or 70.The drum-skin was listed on the album design notes, as having been designed by "Joe Ephgrave" (who doesn't exist, so it's probably Epitaph-Grave) on Sgt P cover.Aside: this "I ONE IX HE DIE" is not on the CD re-do of the lettering, which totally changed the lettering style, so that it f-cks it up to be "I ONE IX HE BIE".Anyway, my point was going to be that the original, which was "I ONE IX HE DIE", would be literally 11-9 ... or I suppose at the latest, 1-19 he die.If he'd died in January as the Beatles Book of Feb. 67 suggested, you could go with the 1-19 date, but again that would be US dating style AND we know Paul was missing and the new guy in Kenya -- if you have any eyes to see the difference in the men -- and Mal moving in with the new Paul in late 66, and Mal's book page talking about the events mentioning firing George Kelly (housekeeper for real Paul) and saying Paul came and Strawberry Fields was started in Nov 66. (This is at the end of "TheWingedBeatle" movie, Mal Evans' purported book typescript flashed in the movie several times at the end.)So anyway, it all points not to January.Why am I elaborating on what's NOT the case (i.e., January)? Just to be thorough.Now to the point:It was BRITISH dating to put DAY first (which we do here in Canada, too, usually). So that would make it 11 September that the drum-skin refers to. Maybe it also refers to the new Paul's arrival after Kenya, to start his new life as a Beatle.But the Cultic issue is strengthened if Paul died on Sept 11, 66 (where 9 and 6 are interchangeable for "magic" purposes sometimes), which makes it Sept 11, 1-666.Plus it fits the timeline best. By November, they were already finished with the Kenya trip initial plastic surgery.
These issues combined, listed in the previous posts, are enough to understand that Paul died. On the other hand, we then are left with a question of what other people in the Beatles' circle may have been feeling, and why they'd go along with it.Usually, would-be detractors bring this issue up as if it is a sufficient counter-argument and would demolish all evidence of Paul's death.It would be part of an argument for his survival, if that were otherwise the stronger argument, but it is not a sufficient issue to MAKE an argument for Paul's survival, especially against what we have listed above.There are many hypotheses about who knew, who wanted to be loyal, might have been paid off, or both. There is also the possibility there was blackmail -- if the idea that Paul was murdered is true, an idea not so far fetched as it might sound.For part of that argument, one can watch "Cream of the Beatles" and understand that there is murder imagery linked to car crashes and Paul is Dead rumour, during the segment of montage images while the Beatles song "A Day in the Life" plays.To boot, the Beatles' company, Apple films, underwrote the film (after the official breakup of the Beatles). The juxtaposition of the images thus had their approval.We also need to know that Epstein received a letter, in 1967, from a "Beleth", which is a Crowley Satanism cult name, offering to return two albums of Sgt Pepper, which had been stolen. And Paul#2 may have been "Ian Iachimoe", who wanted to become involved with black magic, if the ad in the Indica Bookstore/International Times newsletter of early 1966 was by him, and it seems to be.
Thus I complete my assessment of the bare bones of the case, minus very incomplete claims and very spurious ideas, and very obviously wrong ideas in the field.Anyone who posts here asking for "proof" or "facts" who cannot argue the pieces above, is doing an insufficient -- and malinformed -- job of arguing, and can be ignored.Anyone who wishes truly to at least LEARN the case at its best expression, in the CURRENT STATE of what we have -- which I contend is enough to know Paul died, but not enough to pin down all details -- can read the posts above and then compare the mistakes and misimpressions on the other side and make up their minds ...At least do your homework on what's posted above, or you are not a proper jury member, citizen, etc., and it IS an important issue:because, if true, a man was not merely replaced, but we can be fooled (in some ways), we can learn how, and this brings in sicker intelligence circles as well as cultism (through "Beleth", Paul#2's avowed strong interest in Crowley, and the Crowleyite influences in Laurel Canyon in the USA ... corrupting the music scene there at least). See davesweb.cnchost.com posts on Laurel Canyon to get that context.Context. Proofs: sufficient if incomplete. Learn it. Then make your decisions. Good luck.By the way, to fanatic emotional minds, who got hot under the collar about this issue:I want you to grow and at least learn the case, for your own benefits.However, I remind you:Idiocy will show (if you post requests for "facts" now and ignore what I've posted above).Again, good luck. To us all, in this sicker world than it's ever been. And blessings to people such as the Beatles in the end: who wanted to do wonderful things.
For open-minded inquirers who visit here:I hope my summaries of the main facts above help you learn about the case properly, before making any judgments either way, based on misimpressions of the case.
Sorry to add something, but I must post this about my discovery of a double-death-photo composite, in the Magical Mystery Tour movie.Everyone should go to Magical Mystery Tour (movie) and watch the Aunt's dream of "food" where the 2-dead-body composite photo image fades in, again compositely over the Aunt's own moving image. Then see the restaurant horror scene after, and what it implies (says) symbolically about the situation they found themselves in.Anyone who takes the rarity (i.e., never) of showing a dead body in Beatles materials (other than, again, linking it to Paul's death, in the montage of Cream of the Beatles during the "A Day in the Life" segment, produced by Apple but that's often not noticed), should notice the specialness of this MMT death image -- grizzly though somewhat obscured. Its specialness indicates it may indeed be Paul. It also looks like him somewhat.As to the Cream of the Beatles montage for A Day in the Life:The link to a dead Paul in THAT film is not that his dead body is shown there, nor is it necessarily the song itself (it may be or not; it's usually stated that it's about Tara Browne, though Paul # 2 denied that, while Lennon claimed so). Rather, it is that there are two images OF Paul which flash: one of the Paul is Dead rumour (from a newspaper), and one of Paul sleeping or pulled from a pool at some point, when he'd nearly drowned, I think I read somewhere. But the point is: Paul is directly linked to deathlike imagery and the death rumour, and DURING the song for the film where the montage shows lots of other very definitely dead people.But the only other image of a dead man in Beatles films -- and Cream of the Beatles is someone else's doing, as well as Apple's, as I mentioned -- is this double-dead man in MMT.You could also count the more symbolic dead man in an MMT segment (again). The segment is the end of Blue Jay Way. A man with head not showing (cut off) and sparks flying out of his neck and fire raging in a corner of the image, lies rather blueish like a body on a slab. He has "Magical Mystery Boy" written, as if carved, on his chest. This could be Paul as cultic sacrifice represented or simply tribute after the fact of Paul's death. This guy though is not actually dead, it seems.
Go back to Magical Mystery Tour in fact. Watch after the Death Cab for Cutie segment, where George and John are pictured in the audience cheering for the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band and the stripper. The all male crowd can be heard cheering, but over that you can hear John Lennon making non-descript yelling noises. Reverse the audio of this portion. I've done it for you if not possible http://youtu.be/Gawd7YVTiaw --- this audio is still present in the recently restored version of MMT.International Times Issue no.6, January 1967. Interview with Paul McCartney. In it he remarks he is not the great wizard that will change everything, he's just one of them. Amongst other admissions. Below the final installment of this interview runs a cartoon by Jeff Nuttall. (see also My Own Mag /1963 - 1966), where the exploits of Clifton De Berry have been an ongoing feature in the IT. Clifton "having outlined his intentions for the improvement of cultural affairs (read that McCartney interview!!!) proceeds on his first plan of action, to take over the "Ultra House", the first image is the Ultra House in shadow. The next is a Mystery Tour coach trip. I found that very interesting.
There. With that posted, you all have a fairly complete set of multiple posts above, which give the bare bones of the case; and I mostly didn't even go into multiple possible clues on the albums, or songs.Good luck, people. Yes, it's homework for some of you, but good luck and hope it helps those who are willing to look, and do the work.
Dr. Fetser,I assure you Paul is alive and driving to the bank laughing while he counts his billions. One strong piece of evidence is his bass playing. I’ll save his songwriting skills and magnificent voice for another day.I was a professional musician for twenty-five years. One of my closest friends, who played bass guitar for Spanky and Our Gang was a huge fan of McCartney's bass playing. We spent many long hours discussing and critiquing his bass playing, along with other aspects of The Beatles music. We always agreed that McCartney was one of the greatest bass players of our time. We also came to the conclusion that McCartney's bass playing was more cerebral and he never had to rely on fancy tricks. How does this prove he is still alive?Bass playing styles like McCartney's are not developed out of thin air, he was born with a gift and he took that gift and developed it like no one else. If he had passed on, no one could have stepped in and replicated his bass playing, it wouldn't have worked. Yes, they could have hired the top bassist of the day; however, it never would have sounded like the finished product we all know. Why? It’s all part of the creative process in which all four Beatles understood more than any other popular group. The Beatles always played for the song, unlike today’s artists who rely on time tested formulas in order to achieve a signature sound. They were always above and beyond all others and McCartney’s bass lines were the foundation for a sound that could never be replicated.
You said a mouthful, R. Young.You said it all!Well said!!God bless you, sir!!
Talent is talent, but does not undo forensics -- of the voice harmonics (like a fingerprint) or of the body through the photos and the medical arguments from those.Good luck.
And you two confuse two issues here:The issue of his replacement vs. his death, which is what Jaco was getting mixed up on, in the Total show comments on this site.The forensics (photographic evidence carefully considered on the facial structure shapes & positions, medical considerations, dental, and voice harmonics tests) prove he was replaced.After that, considerations purely rational lean to the idea he died rather than escaped to a new life. But also the Beatles' clues come in here: they say he died (directly in Blue Jay Way, stereo not re-issue mono, and MMT movie version, played forward, in the background of the first verse).
just though i would say that i enjoyed your interview.i had a look at the scene in MMT that you refered to with the superimposed image and what i see is a dear head, a human head (upper right), and what looks like some kind of button up shirt.
Hi. Great! There's a human head, partly obscured by the window, partly retouched (ear, neck), perhaps blurry on the mouth as well.The button "shirt" at first I thought was a hospital pillow, but actually, you can see the bottom part of a bloody neck or mouth at the top. It's a shot from above the body bag, standing near the waist.I don't see a deer.
clare i was just wondering if you could tell me what source you saw the film from, as it way be from a clearer than the one i've seen.if it was on youtube could you post a link so i can have a look.
" clare i was just wondering if you could tell me what source you saw the film from, as it way be from a clearer than the one i've seen.if it was on youtube could you post a link so i can have a look. "You need to get the specially "selected" photos " without the deer". Just ignore the "with deer" photos.
Idiot. There are no deer photos; the person was mistaken about a deer in the MMT death head image.As to forensics in photo comparison: When talking of people carefully "selecting" photos, I clearly indicated purely scientific selection processes.Rigour in scientific method chooses the best items for showing the best comparisons so that neutrality is possible. The Italian team searched two photos of Paul before the end of 1966, and where he was clearly shown, and in roughly the same position. For after 1966, they chose many photos from similar and different positions, comparing the movements to what was definitely the original Paul.The Italian team used rigour and proper method, it seems. That is the kind of selection which is appropriate.You have not handled any of their arguments, hence are speaking hot air about the case, even if you happen to be right that he wasn't replaced.You say we have no case; prove it: disprove the forensic science findings.
It’s a psychosis that can never be explained.The perpetrators who initiated the Kennedy murders, 911 and other false flag operations could keep people’s mouths shut by a simple formula. Fear, fear is all it takes. Does anyone really think McCartney being killed or in an accident could be kept a secret among his peers, friends etc.? The Beatles could never have gotten away with such an absurd and preposterous undertaking.Does anyone realize the time period you are dealing with, this was the 1960’s? It’s been documented that The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton and a whole host of singers, songwriters and musicians hung out at various nightclubs with The Beatles. Drugs where rampant, do you really think a heroin addict musician such as Keith Richards or a pill popping drunken Keith Moon wouldn’t know the real McCartney and speak out? Word of mouth would have traveled real fast in the rock music world. Do you really think they would fear for their lives?The Recordings?Does anyone realize how difficult it is to write a song and take it from start to finish, especially a Beatles recording? Ouch! So what some of you are saying is an amateur imposter arrives on the scene, has plastic surgery, plays bass, plays acoustic guitar, (this in itself would be a real laughter if you know anything about Paul’s unique acoustic style) plays piano, and sings vocals in the most popular rock band on earth. Vocals! There’s a good one, the vocals. There are tens if not hundreds of fanatical tribute bands around the world who have been performing for years and can’t duplicate McCartney’s vocals. They may make you think they are reproducing his vocals but it’s only an illusion. No one can and never will.So who was this herculean singer, songwriter, bassist who laid down all of McCartney’s parts in the studio? In the 1960’s no technology existed to manipulate or emulate his vocals such as there is today. There wasn’t any sampling, it just didn’t exist. Recording studios were primitive. Who reproduced his vocals? John? After 1967 Lennon could barely function (it’s documented) let alone participate in such an elaborate scheme. Finally who wrote those hit songs? It’s a known fact that McCartney picked up the slack and wrote almost all of the #1 hits after 1967.What really matters is to hear this one sided psychobabble without any mention of the recordings. The proof is in the recordings, not what some psycho forensic scientists from Italy or a silly school teacher from Tennessee (who goes on coast to coast and reports on old rock trivia nonsense) has to say.The real Paul McCartney exists, although his singing skills are all but dried up and he should retire. I could care less if I convince anyone in any way shape or form. What baffles me, is people are so envious of a man who was enormously talented and have this sick need to have him dead. In this world we make them and when we’re finished we destroy them. It’s a psychosis that can never be explained.Spin it anyway you like.
R.YoungFantastic! You're right!! It's a psychosis and it's psycho babble!! The product of sick minded individuals who have nothing better to do and who want to make a "name" for themselves! They are nothing better than sick in-the-head idiots who try to "make" a name for themselves and who in reality and justifiably end up being viewed and loathed for the deranged head cases they really are. Their "forensic evidence" is neither "forensic " nor "evidence". It is total unadulterated and insane babble! They have not one single fact to their name. Not one single fact to present because their ridiculous "theory" that Paul McCartney is dead is one BIG lie. You CANNOT talk to these PID nuts. You CANNOT reason with them. They are deaf and blind to reality and to truth They are complete fantasists, cranks and crackpots and are to be treated with the disdain and contempt they so richly deserve.If real justice were done these weirdos would be locked up in a mental institution or, even better, locked up in jail for their criminal behavior. And their behavior IS criminal. Paul McCartney will NEVER answer these maniacs. For Paul to do so would give these deluded freaks a credibility which they so desperately yearn for but which Paul will NEVER give them. I pity Paul McCartney who has had to put up with their criminal activities for so long.Kuehn is a liar, a deceiver and a slanderer and, in my opinion, she and her likes should be thrown in prison.No doubt I will receive another load and screed of unsubstantiated, phoney and baseless "medico forensics" shinola in Kuehn's incoherent and disjointed reply.Watch this space.
"Kuehn is a liar, a deceiver and a slanderer and, in my opinion, she and her likes should be thrown in prison."You sir are a complete idiot. Having the ability to differentiate between two men by examining photographic evidence should not be cause for imprisonment in a civil and just society. Instead of your mindless blathering why don't you get a photo of pre-1966 McCartney and find a post-1967 photo that matches it? Please refrain from posting again until you can do this.
Slander and libel are indeed illegal and criminal acts in Great Britain and all it takes is for 1 real Beatles fan who is rich to indict C. Kuehn and her confederates and take them to court and expose their criminal libel and slander to the world. I hope poor Clare has plenty of money!! I hope she keeps that in mind as she posts her Paul is dead rubbish.
Come on, Tom. This is an intellectual issue, not a mud-slinging contest. If some of you can't clean up your act, I will go through and systematically delete your rubbish posts. I am by no means convinced that PID for a lot of reasons, but that does not mean we cannot have a civilized debate about it. Kindly bear in mind that I do not want more childish trash posted on this discussion and comment page. Thanks!
Indeed. Though I'm not sure it can't be explained. It appears to have something to do with ego and brain chemistry.
I refer any SERIOUS Beatles fan who wants to watch videos of Paul McCartney to view the comprehensive list posted by darsie on Jim Fetzer's Beatles tribute page.
Hi, I'm Don but Clare has had trouble posting right now so here are two posts of hers. She contacted me, to ask if I'd post them for her. She wanted them up separately, one for Frank Jetzer and the other for Chevy West.POST # 1:Dear Frank Jetzer: I have no idea exactly how or where Paul died. All the suggestions are that he died in a car crash --- not only from "A Day in the Life", which was putatively not even about Paul but was taken to be, by some PID people after 1969 in the USA (and might have been about him).The strongest suggestion, I feel, is the imagery of Blue Jay Way, partly because it's clear that someone has died in the MMT film section for Blue Jay Way: there's a naked torso of a male actor filmed in blue light, cropped head (head cut off in frame) at the end, with fire and "Magical Mystery Boy" projected onto him, as if carved, across his chest. In the same section, earlier and continuing later, there is a car crash implied: Harrison is on the road and a car heads right for him and the screen goes white.All this takes place in the context of the song, whose first verse, I mentioned on air, has "Paul ... Died ... Paul is very ... Bloody" FORWARD sung clearly in the background --- of the stereo release and the movie itself, but not in the re-released mono tracks.One could really push the clues out of the way, and suggest that maybe he didn't even die. Jacob Everardsky ("Jaco") tried to do this in the comments under Total's show on the issue here at Radiofetzer. He claimed that I and Don Fox were contradicting ourselves when we pointed out that the first and main issue is not how and where he died (for actually, the evidence on that is spotty), but rather that he AT LEAST was replaced.The forensics prove the replacement. The rest is based on clues only, plus the reasonable assumption that IF a Beatle were replaced, he would not likely be replaced just to escape to another lifestyle.Hope this helps.I think Iamaphaoney will tell us later this year where Paul was buried and what the family, etc., were doing/thinking at the time and after, to keep silent, and WHY.
May I say that if someone does not have the integrity to post under their own name, much less use my image with a fake name, they are not going to allowed to stand. I find this offensive in the extreme--and when I discover their identity, I will ban them from this site permanently.
POST # 2:Dear Chevy West: I said on the show that g5xar is a very clear Youtube copy, and there's one other one which is clear.Thank you for your civil questions.
I refer any SERIOUS Beatles fan who wants to watch videos of Paul McCartney to the comprehensive list of Beatles and Paul videos posted by darsie on Jim Fetzer's Beatles tribute page.
One can be a serious fan and still read of possible conspiracies; one can love a country and still read of possible conspiracies ... etc.In the case of whether Paul was replaced for any reason, presumed dead if so, the proof of the replacement itself would be in photo forensics, not random impressions from photos and videos -- as you yourself have suggested.Photo forensics are pursued under rigourous conditions: careful choices made for strong reasons of science, and compared on what can and can't be medically changed, and on more general important considerations of shape (proportion) of the positions of certain features.The Italian team has done so, or seems to have done so. Thus, we can only hold that Paul WASN'T replaced (for whatever reason) only if the Italian forensic work is flawed, and can be shown rigourously to have been flawed.No-one has done so, so far. The typical response, if any, is that of you and others here: that there is no reason to reply to it at all, as you assume it must be flawed. But no-one has shown it to be flawed yet. You have shown wishful thinking, which may be correct in the end, but is not on its own any kind of proof of the accuracy of your wishes. As we all know.So: you do not prove, do not think you have to. You do have to and have not. Thus, the scientists' work stands so far.
The Paul is dead hoax is not a conspiracy. It is by definition a hoax.Don't even think of trying to make this crock of Paul is dead nonsense into what it has never been and never will be i.e. a conspiracy. It is a HOAX. Your forensics are not forensics. Photographs and movie clips are not forensics. Careful choices are made for strong reasons of science? This not science! This is medieval geomancy gone mad! Your scientific reasons are not scientific. You don't even know if your Italian "team" has or has not done its job - whatever its job is or was is not clear. The typical response to your Paul is dead nonsense is one word - RUBBISH!!Hopefully your Iamphoney friend will be able to give us facts although we won't hold our breath.So far your have not advanced your Paul is dead argument one centimeter which is , of course, only to be expected since your argument is based on nothing more than suggestions, clues and groundless hunches.By the way, could you post the names of your scientists here? Your famous scientists will have no objection to your letting us know of their great scientific endeavors. Can we have your scientists' names, please?
Jim FetzerI find it incredible and shameful that you, a supposed Beatles fan, should allow this Paul is dead nonsense to be spouted on your blog. These Paul is dead posters are vile and obscene and beneath contempt and that YOU should allow these PID fruit-cakes the platform of your blog to pump out their sickening filth is totally immoral and criminal. You are no better than the Lone Nutters who slander, libel and assassinate JFK ALL OVER AGAIN with their lies and fabrications.If you want a true example of" offensive in the extreme " then, THAT is " offensive in the extreme "!!YOU should be ashamed of yourself.
"These Paul is dead posters are vile and obscene and beneath contempt and that YOU should allow these PID fruit-cakes the platform of your blog to pump out their sickening filth is totally immoral and criminal."Tom, I take exception your misguided rantings. You and the other numbskulls are way off base. You guys have already looked at photos on other PID websites and you know in your gut that the real Paul McCartney hasn't been seen since August or September of 1966. You know that the mop-top Paul McCartney on the Yesterday and Today album isn't the same guy as the one on the Sgt. Pepper album. Your eyes can plainly see this. But for whatever reason you can't admit it to yourselves. The problem isn't a lack of visual evidence, the problem is that you cannot be honest with yourselves. For whatever reason you wanted to believe that the replacement really IS Paul McCartney. Maybe you can't accept the fact that one of your heroes met an untimely demise. Maybe you liked some of the replacements solo albums and/or tours. Perhaps admitting Paul died a long time ago steals part of your innocence. Only YOU know why YOU cannot face the truth. Lashing out and me and Clare isn't going to make it better. Scathing remarks and name calling aren't going to bring the real Paul McCartney back. It's time to face the truth. You bought into a lie for a long time but now it's time to let it go.
Get a grip, Tom. Clare and Total, both of whom I know well and respect as very intelligent and well-informed persons, wanted to discuss it. This program has various controversial issues as its focus--and PID is certainly among them. So give me a break. It took a long time--six months or more--for me to decide to take it on. That I am not persuaded does not mean I am right and they are wrong. But your attitude is simply indefensible. I am doing what I can to sort out the true from the false across a broad range of issues, where between the two shows PID has produced more comments than any other. I submit that indicates there is keen interest in the subject and that it was an appropriate one for the show. No one is dictating what you do or do not believe--least of all me. So do us all a favor and come down from your high horse. In my view, your attitude is completely absurd.
Jim,I couldn't begin to tell you how much I have admired you and your sterling work in the JFK Assassination. I have all your books or most of them and find them a great source for TRUE information on the JFK Assassination but when it comes to this PID nonsense, I just cannot understand why you would even want to touch this thing with a barge pole never mind grant the deluded Clare an interview. You write that Clare and Total are "well-informed". Well-informed with what? A load of nonsense and insane crap that wouldn't stand up in any court anywhere. For me this PID crapola is just the pits. Your blog has been taken over by two nutters Clare and Don with their constant and regular posting of their delusional garbage. They are taking turns in flooding your blog with their junk. You write that you took six months to decide whether to touch this PID insanity or not. So you DID have your reservations? You should have followed your instincts, Jim. You should have taken six years and another six years and another six years before you said NO!! As for keen interest in this PID rubbish - there is none!! Visit any Beatles forum and read what is written about this PID fairy tale. It is considered a JOKE and a SICK INSANE joke at that. The ONLY ones interested in this are Clare Kuehn and Don who are in league with each other to broadcast their PID nonsense on YOUR blog. In short, Jim you have been conned. They have highjacked Your blog, Jim. You have ceded your blog to two manipular and deluded con artists. Why don't Clare and Don start their own blog and post their rubbish there? Out of sight and out of mind. They say there is no such thing as a free lunch, Jim. It looks like you just handed Clare and Don a dinner ticket for life. I fear, Jim, that it IS going to cost you in the end. As far a high horse, Jim.I don't have one - I just ride around on Caroline's tricycle - if you get my meaning.
Tom, this is a radio show that deals with controversial subjects. I cannot begin to understand your bizarre response to a couple of shows about Paul. It took me a long time to decide to it, but Total and Clare are both well informed about issues around the world and, because of their profound interest, I decided to do it. And to make a very modest point, how do you know you are right and they are wrong? I would be willing to bring someone on the show who wants to rebut them, but I am at a loss as to what someone like you would have to contribute. I read one ad hominem after another. That's not going to go anywhere. If you have good reasons that show they are wrong, then present them. Otherwise, calling the views of someone with whom you may disagree "delusional garbage" is not going to earn you a passing gread.
Jim,Okay, Jim. You said it:" bring someone on the show who wants to rebut them ".You have a professional and moral obligation not to let this PID clusterfuck go unchallenged.And soon.The ball's in your court, Jim.All the best,T.K.
Tom, let me make a simple point. If Clare is right about the forensics--if the skull is not the same, for example--then the case IS closed! I am not taking time now to consider it because (a) I have some other projects of greater weight (a proof that Lee Oswald WAS in the doorway when the JFK motorcade passed by) and (b) I am not looking forward to discovering that they are right, which I strongly expect is going to turn out to be the case.I share all those sentiments about music and ability that I have read here. I SHARE THEM ALL. But I am not willing to allow my preconceptions and pr.eferences DICTATE MY BELIEFS. It is the sign of a rational mind to change when the evidence changes. For all your intensity of belief, you are strikingly lacking when it comes to PROOF. I even had you in mind as someone who might be a candidate for rebuttal. SO TELL ME WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY WERE I TO GO WITH YOU.
Jim, You write about a skull. Whose skull are you referring to? Where is the skull? Can you produce the skull? If you can produce the skull then you can get DNA from it. Am I right? So why is there no DNA forensics available that would indicate whose skull this might be? No, we are not talking about a skull. We are talking about a photograph or maybe a video of a skull. Can't you see how crazy this thing really is? Alas poor Yorick I knew him, Jimbo! And what's more I have his fricking skull right here, forsooth!! Friends, Romans, countrymen, give me your freaking skulls so I may DNA you all!! I refer, of course to the Bard. One should never abandon one's preconceptions - they are always a good yardstick of better things to come. I'll change when I see some EVIDENCE. As regards your Oswald doorway photo I have been working on that for years but it never occurred to me that the photo might have been altered. Well done to you for spotting it! By the way, Jim, are you equating, in any way, your noble and heroic research on the the JFK Assassination including that on the Oswald Doorway photograph with Clare's "forensic" shenanigans? There can be no equation, Jim! No correlation, Jim.T.K.
Tom, Clare has alluded to studies of the cranium in various photos and studies of this question. My point was simple: if there is a difference--a provable difference in the craniums of early Paul and later Paul--then that would be highly probative and probably dispose of the question. Why you are acting so bizarre is beyond me. And to attack me for even doing these shows about this question is ridiculous. IT IS CLEARLY A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. MY SHOWS ARE ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. Get a grip!
Forensic Scientists Analysis:Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni found two good quality photos dated before 1966 and two after 1967. Different photos of a human face, in order to be compared, have to be re-sized to match the same scale; to do this, one feature of the face must be used as a scaling factor. These two researchers opted for the distance between the pupils. In other words, the photos were scaled so that the distance between the pupils was exactly the same for all of them. Once photos of a person have been scaled so that the eyes have identical locations, then if you lay the photos on top of each other, certain features will match exactly, such as the shape of the skull. The skin and hair may be very different, but the skulls should be identical.Both of the photos taken prior to 1966 matched one another perfectly, and both of the photos taken after 1967 matched one another perfectly. However, the researchers were shocked to discover that the photos prior to 1966 did not match the photos taken after 1967. For example, the frontal curvature of the jaw was different (i.e. the curve going from one ear to the other and passing through the chin, which you see when looking directly into a face, as in the photos on the right) and the jaw arc was also different (i.e. the curve of the jaw that you would see if looking downward at the head from above).Gavazzeni noticed a common feature of Faul's early photos that is not seen in his recent photos: a dark area shadowing the external corner of the left eye. That area now shows something half-way between a scar and something that resembles skin that was stretched as a consequence of cosmetic surgery, or, as Gavazzeni suggests, of an imperfect cosmetic surgery. Photos show that Faul's head is more oblong than Paul's head. Gavazzeni pointed out that some of the early printed photos of Faul must have been compressed in height in order to make his head appear shorter and more rounded. He said his conclusion is inescapable because the shape of the skull of an adult cannot be altered. He said there was a simple trick for stretching or compressing photos during the printing process in those days before computer photo editing became available, so it would have been very easy for them to do this trick. Carlesi pointed out that the line separating Faul's lips is much wider, to the point that it was obvious even when Faul grew a mustache, perhaps in an attempt to hide that detail. Lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the wideness of their separating line can be altered only to a small extent. More interesting is the position, relative to the skull, of the point where the nose detaches from the face, because it can not modified by surgery. According to Carlesi, these points for Paul and Faul are considerably different.
ContinuedSome features of the ear are also useful for identification purposes because these as well are not modifiable through surgery. Carlesi and Gavazzeni determined that the ears of Paul and Faul differed significantly. Carlesi noticed that the teeth configurations for Paul and Faul do not match, but in a very curious way. In Paul's mouth, his upper right canine tooth is pushed out of its normal position because there is not enough room in his jaw for all of his teeth to fit properly. In Faul's mouth, that same canine tooth is also crooked, but there is plenty of room in his jaw for all of his teeth. Since no other teeth are pushing against the crooked tooth, how did that tooth become crooked? Carlesi concludes that the crooked tooth in Faul's mouth was the result of a dental operation to simulate the crooked tooth in Paul's mouth.Carlesi was even more amazed at the difference in the shape of the palate. It was so narrow in Paul that some teeth were misaligned (such as the canine tooth mentioned above), but Faul's palate was so wide that the front teeth did not rotate with respect to their axis, or tilt, as was happening for Paul, with the only exception of that upper right canine (mentioned above) which leans outward. Carlesi points out that altering the shape of a person's palate, although possible in the 1960s, would have required a traumatic surgical operation (the breaking of a bone. She doesn't say which bone, but seems to refer to the hard palate), and it would have required the wearing of fixed dental braces for more than a year. Therefore, if the conspiracy theories are false - i.e., if the Paul McCartney that we see today with a large palate is the original Paul McCartney with a small palate - then Paul went through some very serious dental surgeries, and he would have suffered for a long time, and it would have had an effect on his voice. The more logical conclusion is that the Paul McCartney of today is a substitute, and that Faul went through a much simpler dental operation to make one of his teeth crooked.
Terry Baines (and Don):Terry Baines could have done his own research. I posted the most relevant links and named one of the scientists above. Did he read my summaries above before bothering us with what was a repeat and ignorant question?On the other hand, the link Don gives above is a problem for one reason: the summary of the work is pretty good, but the person giving it makes the error which some people on this site, too, make, which is to equate all conspirators with "Zionism" and "Jewry" in a broad sense, not being careful to keep the Jewish players separate from the other players and aspects of various conspiracy cases........................Tom Kershaw:As to Tom Kersha's suggestion that a true fan wouldn't look into this PID material, the reply is as follows -- and which he should, as a thinker, be already aware of:One can be a fan of something, a supporter of the work of someone, aware of the good things about a country, or whatever, and still know that conspiracies and cover-ups are possible in that thing, person's life, or country's history. He should be ashamed for suggesting inquiry means traitorous thought.Duh -- and dangerous, Tom K. ... Really!!!
Clare: I agree 100% with your assesment of Eric Hufschmid - I don't think that Jews are behind all of the wrong doing in the world by any stretch. Surely a crime network was behind Paul McCartney's murder but I have no idea who the actual players were at this point.He does a good job on the rest of the analysis.
Right, Don -- but, to be exact, the issue raised by the forensic analyses (voice, by Dr Henry Truby and others, and face, by the Italian team) is really the replacement itself, not what the reason was. It does not address if he died naturally, went to live somewhere else, or was murdered.The people emotionally discounting the forensic points here are merely upset at the idea of nonsense taking up space (they think it's nonsense). But they've forgotten that if the science is done right, it trumps their emotional wishes and objections about the current lack of understanding we have about how the death occurred and who knew and how it was covered up.I used to feel the same way they do, about the PID case: that it's not a case, but a mere phantasy of uncareful idiots looking at and listening to Beatles material. Unfortunately, due to the forensics arguments, one must hold that he was replaced (for some reason) and that we have a mystery here as to how the cover-up was done. Only if the forensic analyses were badly done, can we go back to believing Paul lived past 1966.These would-be detractors above have lost their reasoning capacity on this issue for now: they put the circumstances they see ahead of the science which would show whether the circumstances they see are incomplete.The forensics would trump circumstantial arguments, if those circumstantial arguments are incomplete. It seems this is what we have in this case: detractors with generalized understandings of the Beatles, who ignore and don't argue against the forensics. That's backward reasoning -- i.e., improper reasoning.I felt PID was just silly, but that was before I knew more about the forensics and about the case in general. These people who try to discount the forensics as impossible to do from photos, or as necessarily badly done just because the conclusions don't match their expectations, have no argument yet against the forensics themselves.Let them raise a direct challenge to the forensics, for any other argument falls short if the forensics are right: if the forensics show a replacement was done, then all of what we thought the Beatles meant when they disavowed the idea of Paul's death, has to change, and our ideas of what the families and friends were doing, has to change. Not the other way around --- if the forensics are right.So let them prove the forensic analysis wrong. Disavowing that it's necessary to do that is unreasonable ... even if they're right that Paul didn't die.The scientists made a case. Let these people above debunk the science. If not: Paul seems indeed to have been replaced ... somehow and for some reason.
I have deleted some redundant posts, including the first one from Tom Kershaw but kept the second (identical) post, to which I have replied. I am a bit taken aback by some of this. I guess its a narrow enough issue to inflame the kind of passion that does not usually arise in the case of JFK, 9/11, or possible attacks on Iran, which might bring about WWIII.
With her limited analysis capacity clare kuehn is spreading this hoax and cannot differentiate between reality and fiction. It's this kind of show that puts a cloud of doubt over the more important subjects covered by the your work. Regardless of the subject, I believe it to be crucial that we expose the frauds.
Jim,I might be able to shed some insight on the PID reaction. I'm willing to bet that 98+% of your audience believes that 9/11 was an inside job and that the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community assassinated JFK. A good majority probably think that the War Machine will find some excuse to attack Iran and that the government will lie to us about it. Nobody thinks that these are good things but we're kind of resigned to it and most of the audience sees these issues the same way. But if you come in here as a PID guy you're definitely dropping a turd in the punch bowl. I get the same reaction in here that I do talking to Beatles fans in everyday life: Get the $%@* out of here with that PID crap! People know how corrupt the government and corporations are but by God don't mess with their Beatles! I can certainly understand where these folks are coming from. People love the Beatles and they see the PID issue as somehow tarnishing one of the greatest musical groups in human history. I don't think PID tarnishes what the Beatles accomplished one iota. In fact it’s a fascinating part of the Beatles legacy.I used to believe that Oswald shot JFK. Then I saw Stone’s movie in 1992 and started reading books like Best Evidence and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. Eventually I found the Col. Prouty reference site and Black Op Radio with Len Osanic and Jim Fetzer. I used to believe the official 9/11 story. In 2004 I started researching it and realized it was an inside job. I used to believe that Tim McVeigh blew up the Murrah building. A little research into OKC proves the government did that one too. I think eventually people will realize that the Paul McCartney that we saw up until late 1966 is a different guy than the current edition. The replacement has a different jaw, ears, mouth, nose, eyes hell a different skull altogether. It may take some time but I think once people really look at the evidence they'll come around. They have on all of these other issues like JFK and 9/11. I didn’t come here just to piss people off. I believe that the real James Paul McCartney was brutally murdered and replaced. I would like to see justice for one of the greatest musicians in history. If a bunch of Beatles fans who listen Jim Fetzer won’t stand up and demand justice for James Paul McCartney then who will?
I just do not understand this hysteria over a show about a controversial issue. That is the purpose of this program: to investigate questions about the answers to which people are divided. I have done over 400 shows on "The Real Deal" alone, I would guess. I have no idea why some of you should react irrationally. If you disagree with someone, then present the reasons why you disagree. This juvenile rubbish in attacking them or me is completely out of place. Enough is enough.
If CoopAlrod would argue that the forensics of replacement are incompetently done, then the claim that the CASE is wrong, might hold. However, to claim I have a "limited analysis capacity" is ridiculous, seeing that CoopAlrod is lacking a capacity right now to realize that, objectively speaking, since FORENSICS SUGGEST HE WAS REPLACED, then those FORENSICS must be argued against.II'm not the arbiter of the case; the forensics are. However, in saying that, I have a much better sense than CoopAlrod does right now, of what's needed for this case to be wrong.The science has been done on one side; let the other side answer the science. Currently, they only argue the circumstances -- and do that badly, since IMPRESSIONS that he's the same, or that MISSING EVIDENCE of death means there was no death (instead of cover-up, which is also possible), do not cut it.Forensics. Argue against the forensics. There's an analysis capacity. And yes, I'd change my own mind if the forensics were wrong. Duh.
I've had it with Jim Fetzer and his blog. As far as I;m concerned this Paul is dead thread has destroyed Jim's credibilty and blown it clean out of the water.. What was Jim thinking when he associated himself with Clare Kuen and her asinine crap?A mistake Jim. a BAD mistake.
Are you such a mediocrity at reasoning that you think one or two shows--with which you so intensely disagree--outweight all of my other contributions? That is a nice case of special pleading by citing only the evidence that favors your side and eliminating the rest. Get a grip! You have not shown that they are wrong--and even if they were, why would it be the end of the world that I have featured them on the show? When this is the quality of reasoning you display, why should ANYONE take you seriously?
I wouldn't be surprised if Clare Kuehn is with the CIA. Don is too stupid even for the CIA. As for Total, he's too smart so I don't know what his excuse might be.
WHAT? HA HA HA HA HA.So: knowing that a forensic case has been made and that the circumstances of the case do allow for a switch to have been done and missing documents -- makes me CIA?!The opposite is true.Where is Darren Bell's head at? Where is Roberto Panatelli's head at?Do you two only follow cases you PRE-APPROVE? Do you only look at cases you PRE-JUDGE?Wow. There is science done by a top team now, saying Paul was replaced. If they are wrong, then fine. But if they're wrong, that must be argued, not merely asserted. They've made a proof (in the sense of a scientific finding, wrong or right); debunk the proof or live with the conclusion they found. What makes me CIA for saying so? Duh.
Tom Kershaw has also posted an impassioned but unreasoned reply again. Tom: a top forensics team did some work. Show it to be false, or recognize that its results are true. There is no middle ground of ignoring the findings.If it is false, fine. If it is true, fine. I personally am okay with either, but their arguments are wonderfully laid out and, I believe, well done. There was opportunity for a replacement in late 1966; and there is the forensic proof now (not "proof" as "true", but "proof" in the sense of "argument", sort of in the way mathematicians use the term, meaning worked-out theory).What of that don't you get? You assume I merely read something and believe it as a stupid ass? No. They've made a great case. As to Don and me: we are REPLYING to the inanity of the comments here. It is Jaco and the rest who "flood" the blog with ASSERTIONS that forensics can't be done from photos, and the team must be flawed, and that their beliefs that Paul lived are enough to argue with.Duh. Wake up; be neutral enough to look at what's said, not what you think a priori.Forensics theory has found Paul to have been replaced. If the work of the scientists is flawed, then let's hear how it is flawed.You think I just repeat their words and they're flawed but since they're scientists, I just take their word for it? No. You think Paul lived? Prove the forensics are flawed; they're well laid out. I'd love to hear the counter argument. You have one?Missing death certs and witnesses don't cut it. That can be because he lived OR there was a cover up.Disprove the forensics analysis of the two men.
I am performing slander and libel, Tom? Ever notice the Beatle Paul (or "Paul") never fought anything ... not even the forensics team?Or you think that's just to ignore it because it's nonsense? That would change your argument from outrage and suggesting I am speaking libellous untruth, to saying it's all too stupid to bother with. Which position would you like to take now?The issue I raise isn't merely an assertion that Paul was replaced: it's that the forensic team in Italy says so and makes a full case for it forensically.Disprove them and that'll be fine. You do see why you have to, don't you? They are professionals in their field and explain their position. They must be answered with a counter-proof or must be accepted. READ IT.
Yes. You ARE slandering and libeling Paul McCartney. Do you really think Paul McCartney is going to stoop to your level? Do you really think Paul McCartney is going to soil his hands with your PID nonsense? That would really make your day. Wouldn't it? Paul McCartney has better things to do. Your PID nonsense is mutating and metamorphosing on a daily basis. First it's Paul McCartney is dead. Then it's Paul McCartney has disappeared. Then it's Paul McCartney was murdered. Now it's Paul McCartney may have been replaced or was replaced. Your Italian 'forensics team' isn't even a team. Your TWO scientists do not make a team. The issue you raise is a tissue of lies and deceit and is in reality a non-issue. There is nothing to disprove. Nonsense and drivel are not admissible evidence. You cannot answer bogus forensics and pseudo-scientific rubbish. First prove your putative non-existent case which you cannot because you do not have a 'case'.Get some facts and forget your imaginary machinations and delusions.Your PID baloney doesn't cut crap.
No, Paul McCartney is a public figure. To commit slander or libel, your remarks have to be malicious, which means that you made them knowing that they are false and did so in reckless disregard of the truth. That is obviously not the case here. You research on the law appears to be as feeble as your grasp of this issue. I am not saying you are wrong and she and Total are right, but that they have made a case, which you have, so far as I am aware, not rebutted.
I HEAR a lot about bogus forensics being done in the case, but no-one's SHOWN anything bogus about the work of the Italian team.I HEAR people who haven't read about them say they're low-end scientists, but no-one's SHOWN anything low-end about them.I HEAR people say I cannot "answer" and have delusions -- implying that I merely spout others' opinions (though they laid out a scientific argument, if you'd read it) -- but no-one's shown that the forensics argument is unanswerable unreason NOR that I cannot and would not change my mind if someone showed a counter-argument which was well laid out and point for point.So whose method of reasoning is crap? Whose sources?I rely on the forensics scientists because they seem indeed to have done a good job. Read it carefully? Tried to understand the argument before dismissing? Thought not.READ. Then we'll figure out if it is bogus or not. They threw the gauntlet. Be a gentleman and figure it out.
You hear a lot about forensics? Your "forensics" aren't worth a plugged nickel and your "forensics" "team" isn't a team. Are you incapable of understanding? You have no case. Your "forensics" is crap. A bunch of photographs and videos? You call that forensics? How can anyone rely on crap to build a case? Answer that. You say you will figure it out if it's bogus or not which can only mean that you believe that it may be bogus. Do you realize what nonsense are you writing here? There is no need to figure it out. It is bogus.There is nothing to figure out. Be reasonable and rational.
Yes. You ARE slandering and libeling Paul McCartney. Do you really thinkPaul McCartney is going to stoop to your level? Do you really think PaulMcCartney is going to soil his hands with your PID nonsense? That would really make your day. Wouldn't it? Paul McCartney has better things to do.Your PID nonsense is mutating and metamorphosing on a daily basis. Firstit's Paul McCartney is dead. Then it's Paul McCartney has disappeared. Then it's Paul McCartney was murdered. Now it's Paul McCartney may have been replaced or was replaced. Your Italian 'forensics team' isn't even a team. Your TWO scientists do not make a team. The issue you raise is a tissue of lies and deceit and is in reality a non-issue. There is nothing to disprove. Nonsense and drivel are not admissible evidence. You cannot answer bogus forensics and pseudo-scientific rubbish.First prove your putative non-existent case which you cannot because you do not have a'case'.Get some facts and forget your imaginary machinations and delusions.Your PID baloney doesn't cut crap.
You hear a lot about forensics? Your "forensics" aren't worth a plugged nickel and your "forensics" "team" isn't a team. Are you incapable of understanding? You have no case. Your "forensics" is crap. A bunch ofphotographs and videos? You call that forensics? How can anyone rely on crap to build a case? Answer that. You say you will figure it out if it's bogus or not which can only mean that you believe that it may be bogus. Do you realize what nonsense you are writing here? There is no need to figureit out. It is bogus.There is nothing to figure out.
Terry, not to put too fine a point on it, but how do you know that you are right and Clare is wrong? Given the evidence that she and Total have adduced, I would say that they have established a prima facie case, which means that, absent a serious rebuttal, there is a presumption that they are correct. So if you have a rebuttal, I suggest you present it. More insults are wearing thin. You don't want to try my patience. So, where's the beef?
Terry: as Don says so pithily below:"Jan 28, 2012 05:58 PMI've heard a lot of "photographic forensics are not forensics" garbage around here. It comes down to either you CAN identify people with photographs or you CANNOT. If you can't identify people through photos then why does your driver's license have your picture on it? Why is face scanning technology gaining steam? If you search Google you can find plenty of criminal ivestigations use photographs to identify people. That was just one. The argument that photographs cannot be used to identify people is absurd. You guys need to come up with something better than that to win the debate."Don's right: are you a cretin?The forensics team is a top team in Italy. They took on the case (the argument) of PID vs the case (the argument) of PIA on a lark. They did their work and found PID. Rebut properly or your statements remain hot air, whatever the truth or falsity of your prejudged conclusion. Your method of thinking about the issue is flawed, if you do not present a counter argument to the forensics.Photos can be used rigourously or not, to prove rigourous medical differences between people's underlying facial bones. No, one cannot determine exact bone shapes, but one can determine certain points compared to other points which won't appreciably change with loss of fat or gain of fat. Some are the base of the nose relative to the chin relative to the temple width and inner/outer eye positions.The Italian team is top, not rubbish as a team. The work is well laid out and -- if you are willing -- comprehensible and seemingly comprehensive and rigourous. Rebut it or you have no logic method.
Jim,Are you in contact with Clare Kuehn? If you are, can you ask her to answer these questions?1/ Does she believe the PID hoax?I.e does she believe Paul McCartney is dead?(that's the PID hoax as it is commonly called. Not the PID theory and not the PID conspiracy).2/ What physical evidence does she have? Not related to photographs and not related to movies.3/ What is her understanding of the gesture known variously and inter alia as the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"?** She mentioned this in her interview in relation to John Lennon and a "devil salute"(?)T.K.
Well, she reads these comments, but how can you have any doubt about (1), to which the answer is obviously "Yes!"; or about (2), where she has enumerated her reasons, including forensic studies. As for (3), I have no idea, but I am sure she will post a response here and soon.
Jim,Mmmm...I dunno.You say 1 is obviously yes. All she has is "forensics" from photographs and movies. That's what I think. Maybe she has something else up her sleeve. Something tangible. Something real. Something CORPOreal, Jim.As for 2 she has enumerated but her figures don't add up and she has not enlightened or illuminated ...either.3 Will be interesting.Anyway, let's hope this PID buddy fuck comes to an end soon! It's breaking my heart, Jim. Breaking my heart. It's either die dog or shit the license, Jim.All the very best!!
"All she has is ..."My God. You don't have any forensics which disprove it, especially none done with the rigour and clarity of argument which the Italian team demonstrates. If they're wrong, at least they did a very big job here.Read. Then understand. Then see if you can rebut.Why do you need Jim to point out to you that the "forensics" is done by a top Italian team and even if incorrect, is a forensic study? Duh.Whose buddy f*ck is this anyway? Certainly not mine. Inane dismissal of logic method and lack of due diligence about the case is demonstrated among the PIA proponents here only.One doesn't even have to assert that Paul was replaced (likely died, too), to know your logic is flawed in not addressing the case the Italian team made. That's Jim's point and mine, to you.I would add I think Paul was replaced, but really it's your lack of method and care which is annoying -- before we even get to the conclusion you hold as a prejudgment, and get to why it would be dangerous to hold that position if the negative intel people and so on of the world were involved here.I've said I'd change my mind if the forensics -- and they're legitimate in method as far as currently can be known -- were disproved. Try.
I've heard a lot of "photographic forensics are not forensics" garbage around here. It comes down to either you CAN identify people with photographs or you CANNOT. If you can't identify people through photos then why does your driver's license have your picture on it? Why is face scanning technology gaining steam? If you search Google you can find plenty of criminal ivestigations use photographs to identify people. That was just one. The argument that photographs cannot be used to identify people is absurd. You guys need to come up with something better than that to win the debate.
To Tom:Part 1: Overview: (Your answers to your questions directly will follow this post):"Die dog or shit the license"? What?Cripes. And always so defensive and aggressive.So, my first OVERVIEW reply is as follows: you can and should do your own research; I had to. Even if the case for Paul's replacement is flawed to the point of being wrong, doing due diligence to sift the materials involved is your own responsibility. You could look up the paternity suits and what the problems were with those court cases, or the recent general citizens' use of computers to do voice tests and reports of Dr Henry Truby's professional UCLA Berkeley tests done in the earliest 70s. You could also look up what the double-fingered "horned god" hand symbol is and think on your own -- right? -- about how common or uncommon knowledge of that would be in the 60s, and why people would promote it even if they were not evil themselves. I even helped with that on my show. Or are you so partial, Tom, you can't think these things through and do any research on an area you think is stupid? I did, and found this case to be, first, interesting, and then convincing in many ways. But even if I hadn't ended up learning there was any forensic evidence which was well explained and seemed solid, I would have at least learned about the case and been able to dismiss it or hold it as an unknown. You have not done due diligence.Second, then, as an OVERVIEW, read what I wrote in the earliest posts on this blog. I have provided many sources and a good sifting of where the case for PID stands relative to the case for PIA. While you're on the Websites, nose around. I did. Some of what you'll find is nonsense, wrong-headed, dead ends but good attempts, and so on; some of it however is good and you'll find a lot more than I'd care to type here.Third, in OVERVIEW, the word "case" used in the way I have here, means a proof, an argument, but not necessarily a final and correct, or acknowledged truth. In other words, one can make a case for AND against something. Just as one can show one's proof (in mathematics or logic) and it can be a flawed proof, thus not proving its case. Even that doesn't mean that the underlying conclusion is untrue. Only a correct proof of the untruth of the other side proves the other side is wrong. These subtleties surely are not lost on you?Or do you assume so deeply that I am a nutcase and miss all the diligence of my presentation, that you forget a) due diligence, b) the usage of "case" to mean "argument", and "proof" to mean "argument"?
To Tom:Post #2 (post #1 OVERVIEW continued, then first couple of your questions answered):... Do you keep missing that I always say eventually, again, that I would accept PIA if the forensics are disproven. They have not been. And moving from the photo forensics (and voice analysis, of Dr Truby and the modern computers, probably) is like saying we should move from the various truthful and lying doctors and witnesses in the JFK case, and not try to understand them, and instead exhume JFK! It would be nice, but really we don't need to. Likewise, Paul's never presented any fingerprints or DNA to us, due to people such as you protecting him from having to -- though it might settle it also in your favour, but "he can't be bothered" and you accept that, instead of a direct and complete demand for an answer -- yet we have forensics from the photos, now analyzed with rigour, and so we need to find out if that rigour was a true proof or had a flaw in it. Jim Fetzer is right that you have presented nothing against it.You don't deserve my answers below so far, since you have not done your own work on the case for PID enough and I did bother. I am not a fanatic; I did the work and then came to a conclusion I didn't think I would. This is not always true, but as you may know from the no planes theory, it's better to check out what does not "seem" to be the case and discover everything about it before coming to a conclusion. There are mistakes in any field, mixed with metaphorical nuggets of gold if there are nuggets of gold at all.You don't deserve my answers below so far, since you have not done your own work on the case for PID enough and I did bother. I am not a fanatic; I did the work and then came to a conclusion I didn't think I would. This is not always true, but as you may know from the no planes theory, it's better to check out what does not "seem" to be the case and discover everything about it before coming to a conclusion. There are mistakes in any field, mixed with metaphorical nuggets of gold if there are nuggets of gold at all.1/ I currently hold that the forensics case, based on carefully (i.e., rigourously properly) selected photos has merit. Unless disproved, that case shows that the PID Rumour (one historical way of referring to the case which was also disparagingly and prejudicially called the PID Hoax) is true, at least that he was replaced. Actual death or murder is not directly proven by the forensics. I call it the PID case (either way, true or not in the end, it is a case, a developed set of facts which citizens have assessed a certain way and make a case).Death by whatever means instead of mere live replacement is reasonably likely, but asserting that comes from understanding the larger case. For short, one can call it PID but really all I'm saying here for the most part is to discuss the forensics of "PIR": Paul is Replaced. :)And of course, yes, intellectually it's a case (as is anything, even a false claim when developed as an untrue hypothesis). One can refer to any case or proof (proof as reasoning) as a "case". Unproved in thefull sense, unfinished, or inconclusive or unacknowledged, it's still a case.2/ You mean physical analysis of his body other than the positions and condition of his teeth, facial bones, vs what's not medically possible to change in cosmetic surgery? You mean, basically, if anyone did DNA or fingerprint analysis yet?
Clare:It could technically be possible for Paul to have been replaced and still be alive. I highly doubt that however.Think of all that is involved in replacing someone: get a double, have him go through plastic surgery, learn to play bass left handed and sing more like the original. Then you have to get all of the paperwork forged. Then the Beatles and Paul's real family have to be either paid off or intimidated to keep quiet. Then the media has to be controlled as well. Not that the mainstream media isn't pretty much controlled but there could be a loose cannon out there somewhere.I don't think they would just give the real Paul a pile of cash and send him off to an island somewhere. If he got bored in 10 years and decided to resurface that would not only blow the lid on this operation it would expose how the whole system REALLY works and they could never chance that. I'm 99% sure Paul IS Dead.
To Tom:Post # 3 (your question # 2 answer continued):First I'll cover the following:There are indications of voice print harmonic differences. Dr Truby(whose specialty was voice analysis) did such a study in the earliest 70s and found 3 different voices purporting to be Paul, which implies doctoring or 3 different people. Citizens have taken different recordings (mono vs. stereo, original vs remastered) and used the same style of recording but a spoken or similar word in a song, and the computer software found entirely different harmonics in the voices.These are not clear, harmonic notes; they are much subtler, and areindications of voice differences. They are as unique as fingerprints.But I am not qualified to say if their arguments are rigourouslycorrect, because they don't lay out exactly what features are best to look for (except we all can at least admit Dr Truby was probably doing his job carefully).You could do your own research on this. The evidence is suggestive, maybe conclusive. The Italian team on the facial forensics explainsmore what they did and why it matters, so I find it much more conclusive, of course.You could have done research. Do some searches.Second, the paternity tests in Germany and England ended up "disproving" Paul had fathered the children in those court cases. Of course -- and here I show my PIA thoughts, so I am not unreasonable, am I? -- the women bringing the cases to court could be merely after money and raising false problems for Paul, but what they said also supports the PID hypothesis. They said that the man "must have submitted someone else's DNA" (for if they're not lying, they know whom they had sex with). And they also said, in the Germany child court case, that they'd had the handwriting sample tested and it was of a right-handed man, and Paul was left-handed.I don't have early Paul and later Paul DNA to compare. But there are hints from these paternity suits that Paul is different.3/ I already answered what I know of the devil's horn hand sign and its increased usage among Crowley-interested persons in the 60s, especially in music. Lennon is often assumed not to have been into Crowley, and Paul (#2 or #1) to have been, because Denny Laine and others such as John Lennon said Paul (which Paul?) was into Crowley. But it would seem that Lennon was also aware of the hand sign, which he displayed prominently in the Yellow Submarine poster. Ringo was probably also aware of devil worship as a "positive" thing (which many think it IS, as I covered in my show), for there was that devil which flashed outside the submarine window, instead of a clock in the window, as in all the other frames, in the Yellow Submarine animated movie; Ringo gives that devil the double-horned salute in one frame during "When I'm 64". Any more than that, is currently supposition about the Beatles' interest in and/or positive or negative take on Crowley and devil worship. But we do have those moments I just mentioned and we have the fact that there was a lot of interest in Crowley, positive and negative forms of paganism, and so on, in the circles they moved in.I covered that in my show.Have a nice day and do the work.As Don said, it's ridiculous to try to leave out the photo forensics. Let's hear a rebuttal to those. Anything else, do your own work. I had to. If we find Paul is Alive or Paul is Dead, that's fine. But at least do the due diligence.
To Tom:Post #4:An important point about your attempt to use the most derogatory of several options of names for the PID side of the argument around PIA/PID facts:The Paul is Dead case (as in, argument) is also known as the Paul is Dead Rumour, not merely the Paul is Dead Hoax. Only those who wish to pre-judge it as untrue call it the Paul is Dead Hoax. Because we "don't know" yet which one is truly the case (here I use "case" in a different sense, of course, to mean, truly the truth), we might find it was a hoax or merely a rumour or truth. But I resist calling it prejudicially a Hoax. There is a case being made. I thus stay neutral in that way. Yes, I currently hold that the case for PID is stronger than PIA, but they are cases. Figure out the forensics and then you will be on your way to having a proper argument against the Italian team and the PID case as it stands now that they've published.
Remember, Tom: your wish for "CORPOreal" proof actually would include photo analysis ... it's his body or not in the live photos, and scientists do have ways to make proper photo comps, when able to select certain photos with relevant conditions for analysis.These seem to have been done in the case of the Italian team. It's either his live body or it's not. Any reasonable from you on this point? If not, you cannot understand where the PID case stands relative to the PIA case, nor rebut the PID case even if PIA.(And of course by PID and PIA I mean Paul is replaced -- and likely dead -- vs Paul is not replaced -- and is alive. Actual death is not proven by the photo forensics.)
Paul McCartney's new album now available. Paul's choice of name for his new album " Kisses on the bottom " has raised a few eyebrows. Paul has admitted that his motive for naming his new album "Kisses on the bottom" was in part, as he says, to make mischief. " I like mischief. " said Paul " It's good for the soul, it's always a good idea - if only because people think it's a bad idea."That's the spirit, Paul!! That's my boy!!Good old Paul!!
Clare Kuehn*** 3/ I already answered what I know of the devil's horn hand sign and its increased usage among Crowley-interested persons in the 60s, especially in music. Lennon is often assumed not to have been into Crowley, and Paul (#2 or #1) to have been, because Denny Laine and others such as John Lennon said Paul (which Paul?) was into Crowley. But it would seem that Lennon was also aware of the hand sign, which he displayed prominently in the Yellow Submarine poster. Ringo was probably also aware of devil worship as a "positive" thing (which many think it IS, as I covered in my show), for there was that devil which flashed outside the submarine window, instead of a clock in the window, as in all the other frames, in the Yellow Submarine animated movie; Ringo gives that devil the double-horned salute in one frame during "When I'm 64". Any more than that, is currently supposition about the Beatles' interest in and/or positive or negative take on Crowley and devil worship. But we do have those moments I just mentioned and we have the fact that there was a lot of interest in Crowley, positive and negative forms of paganism, and so on, in the circles they moved in. ***You have not answered the question. I ask the question again below. Please read it and answer it!3/ What is your UNDERSTANDING of the gesture known variously and inter alia as the" gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"*?* She mentioned this in her interview in relation to John Lennon and a "devil salute"(?)Do I have to spell it out?What is your UNDERSTANDING of the gesture known variously and inter alia as the" gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"? What, in your UNDERSTANDING, does it MEAN?What DOES the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" in your undertstanding of it, MEAN?*** I already answered what I know of the devil's horn hand sign...***You most certainly did NOT!!*** I covered that in my show...***Again - you did NOT cover it in the show!! You mentioned it and alluded to it but you said NOTHING as regards your UNDERSTANDINGas to what the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" actually MEANS.TELL us NOW what, in YOUR view, the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" actually MEANS.
Jim FetzerPaul McCartney's new album now available. Paul's choice of name for his new album" Kisses on the Bottom " has raised a few eyebrows. Paul has admitted that his motive for naming his new album "Kisses on the Bottom" was in part, as he says, to make mischief." I like mischief. " said Paul " It's good for the soul, it's always a good idea - if only because people think it's a bad idea."This quote comes from a newspaper magazine article which I have just read today. Jim, Do you have access to the British Sunday newspapers where you are? If you do, go out and buy a copy of today's (29-01-12) English Sunday Times and make sure you get the magazine called " The Culture". On its cover you will see a picture of Paul McCartney holding a bouquet of flowers with the words: " " Thanks a bunch, dad." Paul McCartney on how he owes the Beatles sound to his father's big-band tastes. "Paul McCartney gives an interview to Paul Cairns on how his new album " Kisses on the Bottom " and his work with John Lennon was (sic) inspired by his dad's old music.Jim, If you are unable to buy the paper I will gladly scan the interview and post it on the internet or send it to you by email.*** Kisses on the Bottom is released on Hear Music/Concord on February 7, 2012.
So the replacement releasing another album proves what exactly??And Faul cared so much about Jim McCartney that he didn't even bother to attend Jim's funeral in 1976.
Don -Don't you worry your little head about Paul McCartney's new album " Kisses on the Bottom ". I don't think Paul McCartney had you in mind when he made it. You won't find any of your reverse "parc" in it. But if you listen VERY, VERY, VERY carefully, who knows what insane "hsirebbig" you could come up with?
Clare Kuehn:2/ You mean physical analysis of his body other than the positions and condition of his teeth, facial bones, vs what's not medically possible to change in cosmetic surgery? You mean, basically, if anyone did DNA or fingerprint analysis yet?You know EXACTLY what I mean!! Do you understand what the word "corporeal" means?Your "answers" are nothing but waffle, wind, equivocation and obfuscation.Answer the f***ing questions!!
I did. I told you what is known about differences between the two and not exactly known other than the photos: voice comps, DNA, handwriting are suspect, but not fully proved to be accurately assessed.The rest is photo forensics. Why should I not call you a cretin for repeatedly asking for a body? We have the live body comps in the photos, done rigourously, and if they are flawed assessments, prove that.Do you not think clearly about what would be knowable in a case like this, vs. what would be missing?
*** You could also look up what the double-fingered "horned god" hand symbol is and think on your own -- right? -- about how common or uncommon knowledge of that would be in the 60s, and why people would promote it even if they were not evil themselves. I even helped with that on my show. ***This is insanity. You are now re-writing history. Not only can we not trust what you write, we cannot trust what you SAY in a live recorded interview! " The double-fingered "horned god" hand symbol "(??!!) is your own INVENTION and shows CLEARLY that you have NO idea what you are talking about and that you have NO understanding of what the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"actually means. This ALONE proves conclusively that you are a fraud and a charlatan. I ask you again:What DOES the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" actually mean?...and please do not start manufacturing any more of your bogus nonsense. We have had had enough rubbish from you already without you adding to it.What DOES the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" actually mean?
Paul McCartney's new album now available. Paul's choice of name for his new album" Kisses on the Bottom " has raised a few eyebrows. Paul has admitted that his motive for naming his new album "Kisses on the Bottom" was in part, as he says, to make mischief." I like mischief. " said Paul " It's good for the soul, it's always a good idea - if only because people think it's a bad idea."That's the spirit, Paul!! That's my boy!!Good old Paul!!*** Kisses on the Bottom is released on Hear Music/Concord on February 7, 2012.
Don Jan 29, 2012 09:43 AMSo the replacement releasing another album proves what exactly??The replacement?Do you feel the irrational hatred, resentment and bitterness against Paul McCartney coming through in Don's post? Well, do you??!!Is THIS what PID is all about?
Tom,Need I remind you that this discussion is about whether or not James Paul McCartney was replaced in late 1966. There has been an individual releasing solo albums under the NAME of Paul McCartney since 1970 - this is not disputed. We have submitted photographic evidence that the individual using the NAME of Paul McCartney since 1967 IS NOT in fact James Paul McCartney born in 1942. Please provide some evidence that this person is in fact James Paul McCartney if you believe this to be the case. More name calling and bluster DO NOT constitute evidence. Things to try:1. Dispute the evidence offered by the Italian forensics team. Was their methodology flawed? Have any of their peers disputed it? I haven't heard about any of this anywhere.2. Find a photograph of Paul McCartney post 1967 that matches a pre 1966 photograph. I have scoured the internet looking for such photos. I did not find any and that's when I became a Paul Is Dead guy. I cannot search the entire internet by myself so feel free to start searching. "Paul McCartney" has been a public figure for over 50 years. There are a lot of photographs of this person. If the person claiming to be Paul McCartney today is in fact the real James Paul McCartney then it should only take you a few minutes to do this.
I don't feel a hatred. I said so. Some do feel a hatred. I think if there was a replacement, and the photo forensic real scientists (yes they are, dude) make a pretty well laid out case for that -- if you'd care to understand them -- then yes, if there was a replacement, there were some shenanigans.And it seems Paul #2 (if he is #2), is into Crowley. Crowley is a mixed bag of insights and evil morals. Anyone into him is risking at least friendships with people who follow the more evil interpretations of life which Crowley had. Thus there is a likely danger which Paul #2 (if he is #2) would bring into the Beatles circle. There are also people in the cults who were heavily present in the overall scene of mass-appeal music (and still are).So, I think if it's Paul #2 (if he is #2), he's just a person, but may have dabbled in things which are sick. Same thing with Timothy Leary, who was an avowed Crowley fan and (to Walter Bowart) said he was also CIA (proudly). -- Aside: I think Leary really thought he was helping, and Paul #2 (if he is #2) might have, too.
Don:****Need I remind you that this discussion is about whether or not James Paul McCartney was replaced in late 1966. There has been an individual releasing solo albums under the NAME of Paul McCartney since 1970 - this is not disputed. We have submitted photographic evidence that the individual using the NAME of Paul McCartney since 1967 IS NOT in fact James Paul McCartney born in 1942. Please provide some evidence that this person is in fact James Paul McCartney if you believe this to be the case. More name calling and bluster DO NOT constitute evidence. ****^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Need I remind YOU that the title of this thread on Jim Fetzer's blog is:Clare KuehnThe Beatles: "Paul is Dead" and 60's Cults I take it that you can read. " Clare KuehnThe Beatles: "Paul is Dead" and 60's Cults."Paul is Dead" "Paul is Dead" "Paul is Dead"Do you understand? "Paul is Dead"You have submitted nothing except a load of bunk about photographs and videos accompanied by endless spiels on pseudo-forensics. You have proved nothing. As for name calling, YOU should refrain from calling other users "cretins" and "losers". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Things to try:1. Dispute the evidence offered by the Italian forensics team. Was their methodology flawed? Have any of their peers disputed it? I haven't heard about any of this anywhere.2. Find a photograph of Paul McCartney post 1967 that matches a pre 1966 photograph. I have scoured the internet looking for such photos. I did not find any and that's when I became a Paul Is Dead guy. I cannot search the entire internet by myself so feel free to start searching. "Paul McCartney" has been a public figure for over 50 years. There are a lot of photographs of this person. If the person claiming to be Paul McCartney today is in fact the real James Paul McCartney then it should only take you a few minutes to do this.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I have no intention of disputing non-existent "evidence" which is actually a bunch of hooey.The so called methodology of your Italian forensics "team" is in reality smoke and mirrors, clutching at imaginary straws to "prove" their phantom and ridiculous theory that Paul is dead and has been replaced.Your Italian forensics "team's" peers do not challenge them because your Italian "scientists" are viewed as jokes!Find a photograph of Paul!! I have a perfectly good photograph of PAUL McCARTNEY in front of me (see my post to Jim Fetzer above). I don't have to trawl the Internet like you for your so-called " photos".I know what Paul McCartney looks like.You and your "photos"!!Viva Paul McCartney!!
Tom,See Jim Fetzer's post to Terry yesterday:Jim Fetzer Jan 28, 2012 01:09 PM"Terry, not to put too fine a point on it, but how do you know that you are right and Clare is wrong? Given the evidence that she and Total have adduced, I would say that they have established a prima facie case, which means that, absent a serious rebuttal, there is a presumption that they are correct. So if you have a rebuttal, I suggest you present it. More insults are wearing thin. You don't want to try my patience. So, where's the beef?"So the same question Jim posed to Terry yesterday I pose to you now: Where's the beef?I know what Paul McCartney looks like as well. He had a rather dramatic change in appearance as of 1967: He got 2 inches taller and a different skull. Since this is not actually possible that means he was replaced. The last photo of the REAL Paul McCartney that I have seen is from Candlestick Park August 30, 1966. If the Italian forensics team is so lacking in qualifications then their 2009 findings surely would have been refuted by now. Who has refuted them? Who views them as jokes? You have no qualifications to refute them. You don't LIKE their findings - we get that. Either find a forensics professional that has refuted them or put a sock in it.
Don ***Well, Jim Fetzer and Tery are welcome to their opinions and views.Paul McCartney did NOT have a rather dramatic change in appearance as of 1967 and Paul McCartney did NOT GET two inches taller and his skull is not different. Forgive me, I am laughing my head off at such baseless "assertions". In fact, they are not even "assertions" since you have no credible evidence to back them up. And, of course, Paul was not replaced. All these wild claims of yours are based on selective and subjective interpretation of dubious photographs and videos. There is not a shred of proof in your insane and ridiculous claims! Your words " the last photograph of the real Paul McCartney that I have seen..." speak volumes for the insanity and bankruptcy of your bogus nonsense. I have already explained that no REAL scientist wants to refute this PID nonsense because it is SO blatantly insane. No true scientist will touch this PID drivel with a barge pole. For any reputable scientist to go within spitting distance of this PID toxic waste would mean INSTANT professional death. I neither like nor dislike your Italian "forensic scientists" claims.This is not a question of liking or disliking. This is a question of TRUTH!I will put a SOCK in IT when YOU stop putting your FOOT in IT every time you post your crazy PID tripe.
Tom,Per Fetzer: we have established a prima facie case, which means that, absent a serious rebuttal, there is a presumption that they are correct.You haven't rebutted ANYTHING yet. Our assertions are NOT baseless - there is photographic evidence to back it up. Once again photographic evidence is used in criminal investigations all the time.PID is insane? Well it should be easy enough to refute then. Instead of posting drivel please for the umpteenth time get some EVIDENCE! You refuse to do any homework on this and just keep posting more and more BS. See my earlier post and go read what the Italian team had to say - you still haven't done that yet. Then go and check this out while you are at it.
Yah, Tom: drivel and tripe in METHOD is all you can spout until you do your research. You assume we're mere dupes. Instead, we're open minded enough to look, at least, and try to understand. In the case of PIR (Paul is Replaced) and likely PID (Paul is Dead), forensics have been done, seemingly well. So, if they have not, prove it.Read. Understand. Argue. -- If you're right, prove it. Your impressions of similarity and our impressions of differences between the two men are insufficient either way, so a study was done. Discuss the study.
I have a hard time believing anyone could be as thick as Tom. Then again I don't want to give him too much credit by calling him an agent. I have actually encountered people this stupid in my own life come to think of it. I mean, to deny that Paul's appearance radically changed in late 1966 is just assinine. Why don't you just google "Faul in Kenya with Mal Evans" and compare that to what he looked like a couple months earlier at Candlestick park or what he looked like on the Butcher cover or various press conferences during the late summer of 66. You are a fucking idiot Tom.
Clare Kuehn ***3/ What is your UNDERSTANDING of the gesture known variously and inter alia as the" gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"*?* She mentioned this in her interview in relation to John Lennon and a "devil salute"(?)Do I have to spell it out?What is your UNDERSTANDING of the gesture known variously and inter alia as the" gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"?What, in your UNDERSTANDING, does it MEAN?What DOES the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" in your undertstanding of it, MEAN?*** I already answered what I know of the devil's horn hand sign...***You most certainly did NOT!!*** I covered that in my show...***Again - you did NOT cover it in the show!! You mentioned it and alluded to it but you said NOTHING as regards your UNDERSTANDINGas to what the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" actually MEANS.TELL us NOW what, in YOUR view, the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" actually MEANS.
Clare Kuehn ****** You could also look up what the double-fingered "horned god" hand symbol is and think on your own -- right? -- about how common or uncommon knowledge of that would be in the 60s, and why people would promote it even if they were not evil themselves. I even helped with that on my show. ***This is insanity. You are now re-writing history. Not only can we not trust what you write, we cannot trust what you SAY in a live recorded interview! " The double-fingered "horned god" hand symbol "(??!!) is your own INVENTION and shows CLEARLY that you have NO idea what you are talking about and that you have NO understanding of what the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"actually means. This ALONE proves conclusively that you are a fraud and a charlatan. I ask you again:What DOES the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" actually mean?...and please do not start manufacturing any more of your bogus nonsense. We have had enough rubbish from you already without you adding to it.What DOES the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns" actually mean?Answer the question!!!
Rewriting whose history? Reality or historical misunderstandings?If the forensic team is right, it's the latter which is and needs to be rewritten.The horns? It is a double-horned god. It's not a single-horned god. It means many things. Research it yourself. There are positive "god" concepts, a kind of "Green Man" of the forest -- nature, wildness, sexuality, etc. -- and negative ones -- nature as dangerous chaos, rape, etc. Satanists mix the two.Do your own research.I didn't make this stuff up. It's in Crowley and Masonic hand sign compilations. One thing that Captain Morgan (of the rum fame) was famous for was publishing a Masonic symbol "dictionary". He was murdered for it. The man who murdered him for the Masons admitted it on his deathbed, and there was a well-acknowledged suspicion for years after the death.In fact, Masonry was curtailed in the USA by low membership for a few decades due to the murder. Do your own research.
Clare **Stop hedging and answer the question.What is your UNDERSTANDING of the gesture known variously and inter alia as the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"?Can we have your answer? NOW!
Hey Tom, why don't you go to this site, 60if.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=faul&action=print&thread=3367, and tell me his appearance didn't change dramatically within a month or two at the end of 1966. Your style of argument reminds me of that assclown Fetzer debated Pete Santilli. You aren't him are you?
Tom: you needed to be reminded of the method of reason and rigourous, patient diligence.The scientists have a legitimate science ... i.e., medical knowledge and photo comparison science: what is legitimate photo selection and knowing legitimate reasons for changes and impossible changes in a face.They are a legitimate team, too.Thus, their position is not mere opinion, and our assessment of it -- for it's well explained -- is not mere opinion. It may be a wrong conclusion, but there would have to be reasons shown as to why it is wrong. You have not done so.And thus, this "no credible evidence" statement is tripe.Show the flaws or indeed, put a sock in it until you do or can show any flaws.To your credit, however, may I note the following point: the forensic team DID agree that even in their findings, the two men have combinations of changes in their faces which give an impression of similar faces. They have different jaws and temples and so on, but due to wider eyes in one and longer nose in the other, the changes do impress our minds as being similar when in fact they are not.You could see this as an optical illusion. This happens to us: certain features being different but for certain reasons, can trick us into thinking the faces are just in different expressions when in fact they are medically different lengths and widths.So: disprove the science, and it is science. Show it was done with flaws. Or you have nothing, even if you are right in your prejudged conclusion.Read. Understand. Argue.
As to Tom's own fanatical statement here:"I have already explained that no REAL scientist wants to refute this PID nonsense because it is SO blatantly insane. No true scientist will touch this PID drivel with a barge pole. For any reputable scientist to go within spitting distance of this PID toxic waste would mean INSTANT professional death. I neither like nor dislike your Italian 'forensic scientists' claims"... again, this is as dumb as someone saying no respectable scientists will take on "no planes" theory, or whatever. This is not true.The forensic scientists ARE forensic scientists.The opposite issue is true than you suspect:It took THIS LONG for ANY scientist to take on the question, and then SOME DID. And guess what they found, TO THEIR SURPRISE:there ARE scientifically significant differences, though, in combination, they are differences which our minds confuse as similarities. If you have a small jaw and therefore larger-looking eyes, for instance, a person with a longer but wider jaw and more forward-set eyes, thus looking a bit buggy, can come across as being a bit similar. That's what has happened, augmented with plastic surgery as well.Do you understand? Do you care to? If you don't care to, then admit that and be quiet about the argument made; for just not caring to understand, is not an argument.
Clare ****There are forensic scientists and there are "forensic scientists". It looks you got two of the " forensic scientists ", Clare...... and Italian, too! Mamma mia!!Now, Clare, please stop prevaricating and answer the question.What is your UNDERSTANDING of the gesture known variously and inter alia as the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"?Your answer? Please...
No: they are forensic scientists. You -- currently only?!? -- cannot emotionally handle that someone who does this science could a) take on the case, b) do rigourous work on it, c) come up with a finding which shocks you (and them, and me, too).If they're wrong, address how you think they are.As to the double horns: it's a pagan assertion of power, sexuality, healthy license, nature, and -- for the negative type paganists -- of outright morally criminal hedonism to the point of, as a group, limited utilitarianism.Fetzer and I discussed this. Do you not listen when you have prejudice? That's unwise, as hopefully you will one day dedicate yourself to seeing in all circumstances when you resist something. Even if your prejudice turns out to hold a correct conclusion, it is not a method of finding out if it is correct.If you are correct, that's fine. But prejudice is no reasoned unprejudicially biased argument.
If it's "bogus forensics" and "smoke and mirrors" and we're merely misled, PROVE IT.But stop claiming they're not scientists. That's just false.
Clare ****How about YOU prove something for once?
Oh, nice attempt. I did present a proof (correct or incorrect) for PIR and, less certainly for a literal meaning of PID (actual death). It is you who have not handled the points raised.Handle them, and we'll see if you have a proof (a case, an argument) which matches or surpasses the forensics presented by, yes, a real science team.Any thoughts on the teeth, the proportions, the fooling optical illusions of opposite combinations of shapes, which make the mind see similarities? (Big eyes in small face, buggy eyes in larger longer face, is one non-medical way of expressing some of the more detailed findings they raise. Teeth compacted by small palate vs. fine teeth with plenty of room is another issue they raise.)
Time for some more good laughs!" Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison " on DVD. I hear it's hilarious. Should be fun. I'm just going to watch it now and I may be some time.
Dude that DVD is a pile of BS - you will get no argument from me on that!
Clare ***Oops! I nearly forgot.What is your UNDERSTANDING of the gesture known variously and inter alia as the " gesture of the horns " or the " gesture of the double horns"?Your answer? Soon?
It's DISINFO. It's to detract from Iamaphoney's work. It's a fake voice, and takes the parodic position that the requisite -- if PID is true -- Mi5/Mi6 involvement was one man named Agent "Maxwell" (a play on the "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" song, as if it was influenced by an agent's name).It IS a laugh and a half, except for the disinfo attempt it is, a deflection from the real case people make around PIR/PID. I am not saying PIR/PID is correct, in that sentence; I am saying that the movie spreads confusion around what the claims ARE.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In the comment above, I was referring to your mention of "... The Last Testament of George Harrison". I second Don and you -- though you didn't know why -- that it's largely BS, except where it mentions old pro-PID argument topics, but even there, gives wrong context to them, as do you.
Double horns answered on air, above (which you didn't absorb), and just now above again.Have a good day. Go to Iamaphoney, learn all the flashing evidence and face what Mal's book has to say, if it's a legitimate page, and understand why it's significant. If you want to watch disinfo about the pro-PID case and just satisfy your hot air emotional superciliousness about the case, then watch "George Harrison's Last Testament".It's like watching the BBC programs on 9/11 conspiracies: mostly, though not totally, misrepresents what people really have argued pro-conspiracy theory, and additionally, gives false counter-arguments.
Tom, etc., do not have to end up believing in PIR, if there's an insufficient case; to them, we could be people who just fall for anything, and I know they think that; but to assume that's what we are, when we raise some scientific findings, is wrong.And of course, some such people point to studies which are "studies", i.e., bad science, but to assume that's what we're doing, is wrong.
Well, Clare, I must tell you how much I appreciate your heartfelt post here today. I don't think I've ever had such a beautiful post from you before and again I appreciate what you have written. Your sincere sentiments just seem to fly out from my computer screen and hit me right between the eyes and to be honest, they have knocked me sideways. I FULLY appreciate it.Thank you, Clare.
Uh, okay. If you are sincere -- since you've been abrasive, I am not sure if you are sincere -- you're welcome.I have tried to give you beautiful and clear and full responses all along.Just so you know.I don't know what finally got through to you here. Do let me know. (If you are sincere, that is.)
Si. The Paul McCartney Really is dead of the last testament of George Harrison is very funny. It is come si dice in inglese so bad it is good! It make a good lesson for peoples who wnat to see how mad the pid nut is. Io amo! enjoy it! and the 2 scientist are jokes in Italia HAHAHA Ciao!!
No, Roberto, it is disinfo and thus has NOTHING to detract from the PID case.As to the fact that the two forensic scientists are laughed at in SOME circles in Italy, it is ONLY because they DARED to do the work AND found they were SURPRISED BUT STILL FOUND that Paul was replaced.This is like saying people laugh at Fetzer. It means nothing. If they're wrong, they should be shown to be, not merely laughed at; until we know what other scientists have to say, who are as qualified and show us their own arguments clearly, and are willing to look impartially at the evidence at all ... we will not know if the Italian team is being laughed at because of prejudice by people such as Roberto P and Tom, or if there's an actual reason to dismiss their work.Hahaha Ciao back at you.Think clearly and read. Understand. Then argue.
The obvious point about Roberto's point is that people usually laugh in ignorance, and get upset that someone would BOTHER with the case. Instead the people should find out whether the scientists were RIGHT or at least made a STRONG case which needs to be debunked if untrue.The forensic scientists made a strong case. If incorrect, it needs proper response to show it is incorrect. And that response must be also vetted to make sure it does its own job correctly.This is the scientific method and proper thinking. A bunch of people laughing means nothing unless they have content to their ridicule, beyond the mere shock that someone bothered to do scientific work -- good or bad, mistaken or correct -- on a topic the people laughing disapprove of.I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU PEOPLE THINK THAT YOU ARE OPEN MINDED AND SCIENTIFIC. IF YOU WERE ON ALL TOPICS, YOU'D NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE ALL OF THEM, BUT YOU'D BE ON MORE SOLID GROUND WHEN YOU DID AND DIDN'T.No wonder serious 9/11 and JFK research fell to a few people, and the rest of the population rarely hears the most well reasoned versions of the cases (e.g., from Jim Fetzer). You people as spokespeople would be largely so biased as not to represent the cases properly even when you're right about the conclusions!Take care with all cases not just some; assess both sides of the arguments as much as possible; read; think; understand. Then argue.
Is Tom going to reply now, to any of the points raised? Does he have any questions about Mal's book page, Iamaphoney's material (good and bad aspects of it), the forensic science points by the Italians, the voice comps, the other photo comps of Paul/Mal and Paul(#2?)/Mal, the real timeline of the history of the pro-PID case's development over time vs the disinfo timeline of the pro-PID case's development, not to mention the debates on what actually happened to Paul?Clare
Has everyone told you already, this is a hoax. Only an fool would believe that you can use photos as proof to claim that a talented musician AND composer (that is still active today) could be replaced by a look-alike. No amount of arguments on your part will change that fact. Now, you can go on posting, trying to convince yourself that you that you did not made fool of yourself and enjoy you own Jim Fetzer podcast in which you tried to give legitimacy to this hoax, but I would recommend at this point that you leave the computer and go outside to take a walk to feed your brain oxygen. Maybe that will help you differentiate between reality and fiction? Good luck.
For someone who has not read anything carefully in a neutral enough spirit, to be able to determine what points are debatable and should be debated, versus what points are undebatable, you sure do rush to yet another conclusion:that I can't differentiate between reality and fiction.What I actually do, CoopAlrod, is differentiate between possibilities, until they show themselves as impossible or the only possibility. Currently, we have an indeterminate situation, with PIA and PIR (replaced)/PID being almost equal, or even PIR/PID being stronger (if there is no rebuttal for the forensics, and there isn't currently). You don't know any of that. Because you haven't bothered to know.So you go take a breath and learn, read, argue then. Me, I'll continue to say I'll be neutral until we have the truth settled down in this issue of what happened to Paul or didn't happen to him.Toodles.
Oh, and as to fools (foolish mindsets), I need obviously to remind you that what photos can, in some cases, show forensic differences between people -- if those photos happen to have certain scientific comparison points showing, and are rigorously chosen for proper reasons ...whether those persons in the photos are famous or not.Duh.So: the team is professional; the work is laid out well for their position to be understandable and thus is discussable; the choices of photos and the medical differences found in the comps are seemingly rigorously done.And your issue is merely that you don't believe the two could have been switched?Well, that would be a good objections, if the two forensically are not shown to be switched. Other than that, it is a circumstantial argument which is not air tight: there WAS a time they could have been, and have always HAD rumours since 1966 around London that they were switched. So ... the circumstances allow for it, it would seem.We now have more direct evidence one way: that they WERE switched somehow in that time frame. Disprove the forensics and you can hold again that your circumstantial argument is correct, though you must by now know at least that it is not air-tight.But you haven't debunked the forensics. So not only are your circumstances insufficient, but they might well be debunked by the forensics. Forensics first, re-understanding the circumstances second.Right? Or don't you get the logic?
Thank you to Clare, Jim, Don, and anyone I may have missed for bringing this PID and PWR issue further into the public eye and ear. This issue needs to be brought into the light and the truth needs to come out. This cover-up has gone on for far too long. Besides the need for justice to be served for James Paul McCartney it is important that the public understands what is going on and has been going on for far too long. Those who are posting on this thread in an abusive and inane manner are most likely disinfo agents. This you very likely already know. Their purpose is to pollute and derail the thread in an effort to contain the truth. Lastly, I would like to mention that the title of faul’s latest catastrophe, Kisses on the Bottom, alludes to a Satanist ritual. It should also be noted that the words kisses on the bottom contain an acronym that is the formal term for this disgusting ritual performed by these Satanists, of which faul is one. Again, thank you for working so hard to bringing out the truth of this issue. I, for one, greatly appreciate it.
Welcome aboard misty! I agree that the cover-up has gone on for far too long now. That's what motivated me to post here.I'm sure there may be some dis-info agents lurking around but I think most of them just refuse to look at the evidence because they can't believe the intelligence community could pull this off. Yet the facts remain.I think you're right about Kisses on the Bottom referring to an ass-kissing ritual but I find that area of research a bit disgusting so I'll let Clare dig into it!
Misty, thank you for your kind words. I think most or all here in the comments page, are not disinfo agents, though they were inane, about the forensics work. -- In failing to recognize rationally that even if Paul is Alive, the forensics need to be debunked on their own terms, or, alternately, recognized as excellent work. I think most of these people here are rendered yes THAT hysterically irrational by their convictions, that they cannot accept that the people doing the science are indeed serious scientists and did good work, which if there were flaws, they were not obvious flaws.In other words, I could suggest PNR (Paul was Not Replaced) and still recognize, as Jim does, that the forensics would and might trump all other impressions of the history.These fanatic one-sided thinkers you mention, from here on the comments section, are claiming the scientists are not properly professional ones, or just their arguments have to be wrong, period. Why? Irrationally just because these people have an impression of similarity between the two men, which is tautological in the face of the good general arguments of the scientists (even if they turn out to be wrong). These people will not read it to even try to understand and argue against it. This is the worst flaw in a researcher!The scientists used a seemingly rigourous method, and explained arguments so the public can assess the logic of the experiments they did. This means I am not merely quoting somebody wishfully. I am quoting someone with a seemingly strong argument, which these people prejudicially judge my judgment of. I think if they took the time to really understand it, they'd see it is a strong argument, whether it is perfect or not, correct in the end or not!I can say I am open to the idea that Paul is Replaced (PIR), and indeed think it so likely now, that I'd say PID (Paul is Dead), not merely replaced. We will know for sure one day, but these people are keeping the ATMOSPHERE in place where the forensics, etc., won't get further work done, since it remains "unpopular to ask at ALL."Most here on the comments should know enough now to stop assuming there was no time or place the deed could have been done, and the forensics are unintelligible or have to be wrong even if these people won't try to understand them before they pronounce on them. :(Irrational approaches, i.e., mere willful assertions that unread science is badly done or a question should not be asked, as Jim in effect said, won't help. We need to at least recognize the prima facie case is made, and handle the rather thorough forensics issues.If there is any way really to debunk them directly, then let's find it (for indirectly won't do: there WERE motive, means, and opportunity, in several different ways).We don't need a dead body to know someone's missing, if photos after a certain date have major anomalies enough that rigourous testing shows a different man is present in the photos.
But for you Misty personally, since you raised this particular issue:I'd say my opinion is: the Kisses on the Bottom phrase may well reference the Templar rituals (or ones, at least, that they were accused after torture, of committing); though of course, on its own, the argument would not stand. I think the seemingly genuine "Beleth" letter to Epstein about the stolen Twin Pepper albums is even more helpful to knowing if Paul and his circles were into magic(k) enough to reference such things.That letter is strikingly suggestive that around Paul (putatively #2), are magic(k) circles of a not-so-kind kind. We know that Paul (#2?) is very into Crowley (per Lennon and Laine). The Beleth letter suggests he may be, perhaps in some more than mere curiosity way. "Ian Iachimoe", the signature on "Paperback Writer" and the "Filmmaker" wanting a real Black Magic group in the Indica newspaper after posting another ad as "Ian Iachimoe" also suggest that Paul (#2?) was/is into magick of the unsavoury kind.This would mean that yes, some of what might otherwise be less certain attributions for symbols and wordplay, really are likely more of the same: Templar/Crowley/Black or White magic(k) references. As such, I say the "Kisses on the Bottom" may well be such a double entendre, of sexy love AND magick ritual.
Clare, your patience and rationality, in dealing with these trolls, are simply amazing, or as Dr. Fetzer would say, "stunning"! ;)Nevertheless, what more can you tell us about the scientific voice-comparisons that have been done by experts on the two (or three) Pauls? And what about comparisons of motion picture footage and video recordings? BTW, have you ever seen the Paul McCartney 9/11 documentary? I only recently learned of its existence because it's playing this month on one one of the cable TV movie channels. Hmmm....
Hi there, Andy.Well, thanks! People can be so entrenched in resentment and incredulity that they can't even remember that a case can be made both ways, and that currently the pro-PIR (Paul is Replaced) forensics in this case have not been debunked, and would need to be properly able to be debunked, for the PNR (Paul is not Replaced) case to have a chance again.As to the voice comps, I am very cautious because though Dr Henry Truby compared 3 songs in the late '60s or earliest '70s, and found 3 different voices. We also now have computer analysis finding different voice print harmonics in some samples of the same words spoken (and I know harmonics will vary a bit all the time, but these are very different). You can go to PlasticMacca or some of the Paul Is Dead forums for info on these things.My problem is that we know for sure that they warped the voice; the explanation being that Paul wanted it for musical effect. And I don't know if that would change the harmonics enough to be an inconclusive proof one way or another.As to the Paul 9/11 doc: what I find interesting (and no, I haven't seen it), is that he claims he was right there in a plane in NYC that day. I would say that's at least currently suspicious, though not, of course, determinably proof yet of anything. It could be quite innocent and he was not aware of what was about to happen, and maybe has remained ignorant or not.Even if he was innocent (had no knowledge) on the day, AND woke up later, like so many people, he would be unlikely to speak out against it. But it also would suit an "agent" or someone sympathetic with right-wing (pro-government law and order over people's rights), to produce a pro-9/11 propaganda film.So I have no opinion as a finalized thought on any of that. Those are just logical lines of inquiry which are "open" yet, as far as I know.The issues I wished to raise were the "Intel" cultism and cultic infiltration of "Intel" back again. And how prevalent "agents", as in sympathizers with controlling powers, can be. And how people get fooled, used, pursued by counter-elements (FBI going after CIA agents ... etc.).And how prevalent all this is in the music/commercial arts, and how hedonists could be not rigorously thinkers enough to notice what they're really promoting.I stay rational (most of the time) with the "trolls", or "annoying people" by reminding myself that everyone can have intense feelings and even if they're right, they should hear out the arguments properly. I have struggled to do that for things I thought were nonsense, and sometimes discovered those things WERE nonsense, or partly so, or NOT nonsense in some specific way but were PRESENTED insufficiently.Thank you, though. Some of the nonsense and nastiness and irrationality was horrible -- whether PIR or PNR in fact. ;)
Further, Andy, Dr. Fetzer himself spewed some irrational responses -- not just contrary, but irrational -- to the issue over the year I tried to get him to look at the argument lines, and the forensics.Once he realized that of course, IF the forensics are right, all the rest had to be re-viewed, he wanted to have it on.The circumstantial evidence for PIA/PNR (not replaced) is not airtight; it leaves room for a circumstantial PID/PIR (is replaced) case. The clearly laid out and seemingly rigorous open-source arguments about bone structure forensics take the PID/PIR case somewhere more definite ... and must be handled no matter what.
hi clare just thought i would let you know that i have just recently re-watched Magcal Mystery Tourand have rethought my opinion about what i called a dear head.it is actually a cow, which can be seen later in the resurant sequence, also notice the patern that appears at the bottom of both imageshttp://www.screenshots.cc/photos/original/57663-zc45j.jpghttp://www.screenshots.cc/photos/original/57664-xy3rs.jpg
Describe how you see a cow, and the pattern's relevance at the bottom, according to you, please.I have described the left-hand bodybag and the brow, mouth, doctored ear of a human, and shown that it fades in where the left eye of the profile shows more in some frames than others, also seemingly composite, before I was sure of what they were.Describe how what you think you see would be outlined: where does the "cow" start? Where is the nose? Where the ears? That is the start of a discussion: description of what and where, not what and identified meaning (such as "cow" or "human").Where does your cow face start? What of the bodybag? How about the reflective dead eye in your frame -- nice capture, by the way -- which seems to match the quality of the death head eye on the right, except with direct lighting?I also don't recall a cow in the restaurant scene, but perhaps I'm forgetting that part of the scene. It's more symbolic, however.Remember, the Aunt also sees religious regalia at one point: the only still image which flashes other than this one (and it's on for less time and doesn't move around at all, unlike this one).Thanks.And by the way, only the link for 57663-zc45j worked for me. The other didn't. It just asked me if I wanted to sign up.
Oh I see: you think the "ear" of my profile idea is the mouth of a cow. Possible -- but why the bodybag on left and what is the hand over the top? What do you think the blue pattern is?Why the "painted" look of the "snout" (if a human then this would be the ear, which I considered doctored with paint?If the item on the left is not a bodybag, why the suggestion of a lit dead eye above it?Good frame capture.
I can see the possible cow. I see what you mean. What do you think the bodybag is, then? Do you think it's the real Paul or something else?I would love to retract my own mistake on the image if it is wrong. On the other hand, the symbolism throughout the movie continues to support the context of the thesis, even if I got which way the head was oriented (i.e., not a profile but a nearly head-on, thus not Paul but the cow).I am also wondering what you think the bodybag-like/eye image are on the left? Any ideas?The strongest support is the Blue Jay Way wordings FORWARD about Paul's death. That is not hard to hear and not something one can mistake as I may have in this hazy composite with a death eye but an ear-shape cut-out for the muzzle/snout of the cow.We should also note that Paul's head/face forensic exam is clear-cut, through the work of the Italians, and has not been challenged by anything competent. They raise the issue of the mouth and nose and ear placement on clear photos.Sorry if I got the image of the death object wrong! Good. Fine work, Chevy. Now let's move to the better findings, scientifically expressed.
I'm afraid I have to throw my two cents in here and back up Clare Kuehn's claims. As a fellow researcher (in my case, legal and historical), and having gone through thousands of books for evidence, then comparing it all and analyzing it, then finally coming to the only rational conclusion that fits the evidence, I can fully sympathize with the PIR & PID claims. I have also gone over the indisputable evidence available (biometrical, historical, eye-witness testimony, background information, etc...) and there is a nearly air-tight case of PIR/PID. I was also a one-time Beatlemaniac and (for my having repeatedly played my collection to the chagrin of family) have inadvertently analyzed all of the Beatles voices and can tell a very distinct voice difference between pre-'66 and post-'66 Paul McCartney that cannot be explained by age or accident.In a nutshell: Paul is not, Faul is.
Thank you, Dean! Yes.
Dear Jim Fetzer, you have pretty much discredited yourself and cast doubt on the 9/11 truth movement by your association with the "Paul is Dead" conspiracy theorists. This is not a harmless "intellectual issue" or a serious debate involving a crime. These are defamatory statements about a living person based on bad data collection and junk science. This discussion on YOUR forum raises serious questions about YOUR ethics.Frankly, the science is bad. These are not peer reviewed journals and the data collection has absolutely no controls. A very small sample of grainy photos from the sixties that may have been processed is not sufficient or acceptable data.The 1969 voice analysis is also fatally flawed. The conclusions drawn by the PID crowd is quite misleading and shows extreme bias because they ignore the other two experts that did NOT find anything suspect about Paul's voice. But I digress. Analog audio that has been heavily processed for vinyl records is not acceptable data. The recording equipment changed drastically over the period that the Beatles recorded music and voice recordings on 60's vinyl records are heavily processed. They are often sped up, double tracked, and mixed with background vocals and other sounds. To use group recordings for a voice analysis instead of isolated voice recordings is flawed and borderline irresponsible.
You are wrong, "Meh".The photos they used are FAR from grainy. They used excellent photos from pre-1966. And they also make PERFECT comps, because they're jaw-closed and frontal and relaxed.The forensic scientists have worked on many cases. They came out to the public this way. I doubt they'd get the work accepted in most journals from SUBJECT MATTER, not content.You can read and understand the arguments yourself, anyway. If a jaw width and height in a full frontal view creates a proportional shape, and same for temple width to mid-eye, and so on, you have comparison shapes.Pre-1966 two clear, frontal photos, jaw closed, match each other on all bonestructure relations. AND post-1966 (except Sgt P, which is doctored to be neither) match each other. And pre- do not match post-.You can see it, measure it yourselves. The basic science is easy to know.I agree that the voice comps are unclear yet, but if you realize they did a lot of distortion, this makes sense.As to ears, by the way, Meh, you should note something even an initial viewing can demonstrate to you: the earlobes of Macca are radically deformed and droopy (from Plastic Surgery or naturally?), and then sometimes he wears false ears which leave shadows along the ear, and have ear flaps, but which, if touching the skin, would be non-droopy (attached) lobes as JPM had. JPM had some lobe, but not droopy. And definitely not deformed. http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2009/12/fauls-false-ears.html -- Even the first photo comp should show you.So no, Jim has ACCREDITED, not discredited himself. You simply have not yet absorbed the objections to your objections. But that's okay. Try again! We all have to do that sometimes.
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F: